Transparency isn't a hard word to understand.  You might say the meaning is so clear we can see right through it (sorry, I couldn't resist). But seriously, think about it…do we really need to review Merriam Webster's definition to understand transparency?  Transparency is defined as, "something transparent: a picture viewed by light shining through it or by projection.  The quality or state of being transparent."

     Maybe we should consult a higher authority than Merriam-Webster to understand true transparency.  In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul said, "But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light" (Eph. 5; 13).  The key to transparency is light.  Light exposes everything that is darkness and it pushes the darkness away so we can see clearly.  There can be no secrets, no whispering, and no ambiguous speech present if we are to experience true transparency.

     On the campaign trail, candidate Obama promised if elected, "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as a president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government is doing."  But ten months into President Obama's administration it appears the sun has set on transparency.  We were promised nothing but complete transparency in accounting for the $700 billion plus bailout of the banking industry.  But so far, no one can say for sure how the money has been spent.  Some banks are lending but many more have just padded their investment strategies and kept the money locked away.  We don't know which is which of course because there has not been anything near a clear accounting of the dispersal of the TARP funds. 

     Transparency certainly hasn't been the watchword on Capitol Hill.  The much ballyhooed $787 billion stimulus package was 1, 073 pages long and committed the United States government to the biggest spending increase since World War II.  Yet the final vote on the bill came less than 24 hours after House and Senate conferees agreed to a deal.  There wasn't even time for members of Congress to read the bill let alone offering it to the public for pre-signing scrutiny. 

     Transparency was also apparently lost in the shuffle over the plethora of healthcare plans considered in the House and the Senate. The "Baucus Bill" that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee was whisked away before the ink dried so the details could be hammered out behind locked doors.  No Republicans were allowed in the closed-door meetings and Democratic Senators who worked on the bill were sworn to secrecy.  The end result is a 1,502 monstrosity that reads like stereo instructions written with Roman numerals.  Here is just one paragraph from the Senate version:

"Title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act is amended (1) in section 2705 (42 U.S.C. 300gg), as so redesignated by section 101 (A) in subsection (C)(i) in paragraph (2), by striking "group health plan" each place that such appears and inserting "group or individual health plan"; and (ii) in paragraph (3)(I) by striking "group or individual health insurance"; and (II) in subparagraph (D), by"…. well, you get the idea.

      Even if the members of the Senate had a year to digest all 1,502 pages of the bill it would take a team of lawyers and tax experts to decipher and explain the language.  One of the keys to transparency is cleanly written, understandable legislation that doesn't obscure the intent of the authors in unintelligible legal speak. 

     Not to be outdone in a quest for a new brand of "opaque transparency" the House of Representatives also worked behind closed doors as they crafted their version of healthcare reform.  When the House finally opened the door to reveal their handiwork only those on Speaker Pelosi's VIP list were allowed to attend the bill's roll out.  The House healthcare bill is almost 2000 pages long and contains the same kind of impossible to comprehend language as the Senate bill.

     The American people deserve better than the contradiction of the promise of transparency and the reality of a closed-door government.  Transparency, without the light of truth shinning through, is just a word.  It's time for the Obama administration to embrace true transparency by letting the light in. 

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

There is a lot of emphasis today on sports in general and on team sports in particular.  We are in the heart of college and professional football season and baseball is busy deciding which two teams will compete in the 2009 World Series. 

     Football and baseball are team sports.  Football has eleven players on both sides of the ball while baseball has nine players in the field and in the dugout.  Both sports are considered to be "team sports" but when you think about it, both sports depend on a one on one matchup.  When a quarterback drops back to pass, looking for the open receiver, football becomes a one on one sport between the quarterback and the receiver.  When the quarterback releases the ball, the one on one shifts to a contest between the receiver and a cornerback or safety. 

     The same is true for baseball.  It takes all nine players in the field playing defense for a baseball team to be successful but the outcome of the game comes down to a one on one dual between a pitcher and a batter. 

     Evangelism is a team effort that should involve every member of the Body of Christ working together to see the lost come to Christ.  But no matter how much teamwork is involved in planning an evangelistic event or how many witness teams fan out to win a city or a community to Christ, eventually evangelism comes down to a one on one encounter between a person who is following the Way and a person who is following their own way. 

     Acts 8 tells the story of Philip the evangelists' one on one encounter with a seeker in the desert.  Acts 8:25-40 has six action phrases that give us a guide for effective one on one evangelism.  In verse 26 the angel of the Lord told Philip to "get up and go…"  The first task of anyone who wants to share the Gospel is to "get up and go" where God leads.  The Great Commission begins with the command to "go."  Before we can go we have to be willing to "get up", that is to be ready to respond to opportunities for sharing God's Word.  The Church in America today has a "come and see" approach to sharing the Gospel.  But the invitation to "come and see" needs to be extended by people who have left he comfort of the church pew in favor of the challenge of engaging people in the culture.  People will come and see if we are first willing to get up and go where they are, meet them where they are, and persistently refuse to leave them where they are. 

     Verse 27 tells us Philip, "got up and went."  Philip must have thought the command of the angel of the Lord was strange.  He was in the middle of a reformation that was taking place among the Samaritans who were coming to Christ in great numbers.  He must have wondered why God would take him out of a revival and send him to the desert.  But while Philip had winning a group of Samaritans in view, God had a winning a continent on His mind.  Even though he knew almost no one travels through the desert in the heat of the day, Philip walked where he could not see because he trusted the view of God.  Many church historians believe the witness of Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch marked the beginning of the witness of the Gospel on the African continent. 

     Verse 29 says Philip was commanded to "go up and join" the chariot.  Philip closed the gap between himself and the Ethiopian by running alongside the chariot and calling out to him.  We will never win the lost of our world from a distance.  We can't simply shout the Good News through a megaphone and expect lost people to come to the sound of our voice.  If we are going to win people to Christ we have to be willing to get close enough to build a relationship.

     Dr. Delos Miles was my evangelism professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  His definition of evangelism was "building a bridge from your heart to the heart of a lost person so Jesus can walk across."  Bridge building requires close contact.  It requires a radical commitment to relationship building.  Jesus practiced up close, one on one evangelism with the woman at the well; the woman caught in adultery, and Matthew the tax collector.  He was criticized by the religious elite of the day but He rejected their taunts in favor of spending time with lost people.  We must be willing to do the same.

     Verse 31 has the invitation from the Ethiopian to Philip to "come up and sit."  Philip had to climb over a lot of barriers when he climbed into that chariot.  He had to climb over the race barrier, the class barrier, the culture barrier, and the barrier between Jew and Gentile.  None of those barriers mattered to Philip and they must not matter to us.  We must be willing to go up and sit, to spend time with those who are hungry to know God.  We should be willing to pour out our lives for their sake. 

     Verse 35 really holds the key to the entire witness experience.  Philip "opened his mouth and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him."  It isn't our clever stories or our preaching method that will win the lost to Christ.  It isn't enough to live our lives in front of lost people hoping they will catch our faith through some kind of spiritual osmosis.  We must be willing to preach Jesus Christ crucified, dead, buried, and raised again to new life. 

     Finally, when Philip and the Ethiopian came to place where there was water, verse 38 says they "both went down into the water."  This speaks of walking with a new believer through the early stages of his new faith.  Christ called us to "make disciples" not count converts.  Disciple making requires a willingness on our part to become a mentor for new believers.  One who is willing to pour into their life the goodness God has poured into our life. 

     Evangelism one on one…it worked with a seeker in the desert.  It will work with lost people today. 

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

      Ask most Texans the meaning of the word potential and they will say, "It means you ain't done nothing yet."  It may not be eloquent but what it lacks in eloquence it makes up for in accuracy.  Merriam-Webster may have said it better defining potential as, "existing in possibility or capable of development into actuality," but the meaning is the same.

     For 2009, the Nobel Peace Prize has become the Nobel Prize for Potential.  The Norwegian Nobel Committee admitted their choice had more to do with what will be done than what has been done when they said in announcing the award, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."  They applauded President Obama's "vision for a world free from nuclear arms" and his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy."  Is the world actually moving in the direction of being free from nuclear arms?  Let's ask the governments of Iran and North Korea.  Have President Obama's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy" born fruit?  I suppose we could ask the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic how diplomacy looks when the United States decides to leave its allies twisting in the wind in favor of the "potential" of Russian help on Iran. 

     On the other hand, maybe the Norwegian Nobel Committee is on to something.  Just think of the potential of handing out awards based on potential.  Ballots for the Heisman trophy could be mailed out in the same envelope with the name of the recipient. Oscar nominations could be announced and the prize awarded at the same time, sparing us the torture of a four-hour left-wing variety show.

      That must have been close to what the Norwegian Committee was thinking when you consider the timeline for Nobel Peace Prize nominations.  Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1, 2009.  Some simple math reveals that is just twelve days after Obama took office.  Invitations for nominations were mailed last September, two full months before Obama was elected president.  It seems Obama's "we can't wait" mantra, which was used to pass the stimulus package, take over General Motors, and push the nationalization of healthcare to the brink of passage, was adopted and amplified by the Norwegian Committee.  Waiting to see if President Obama's vision of hope and change would blossom into the development of a definable set of actual results was obviously out of the question.  The truth is, when you read the whole statement of the Committee it becomes clear Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace was right when he said, "The Committee gave this award to President Obama for not being President Bush."

     In 1990, the same Committee gave the award to Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev for "helping bring the cold war to an end."  He won the award for not being President Ronald Reagan.  It was Reagan who forced Gorbachev's hand by demanding he tear down the Berlin Wall and by walking out of the negotiations at Reykjavik without giving away America's missile defense system.  Reagan knew the Soviet economy would not survive a direct assault by a nation that was both determined and capable of matching their military might.  Reagan knew his designation of the Soviet Union as "an evil empire," would send the political left into hysterics but he knew it would inspire millions of people who longed to break the chains of communist oppression and trade them for the promise of self-governance.

     While President Reagan was busy destroying the political and military might of the Soviet Union, Pope John Paul II was busy building up the moral courage of the people of Poland (his homeland) and inspiring the leadership of Lech Walesa (a legitimate Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1983).  Their combined efforts led to the fall of Communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union.  The casual bystander in this international drama was Mikhail Gorbachev.  Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize and Reagan and Pope John Paul II won freedom for millions of people from the terrors of Communist rule. 

     There have been other dubious winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.  Al Gore shared the award with the IPCC in 2007.  Former President Carter won the award in 2002 and in what may be the most bizarre award of all time, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat shared the "honor" with Shimon Peres (Israeli Foreign Minister) and Yitzhak Rabin (Israeli Prime Minister) for working together toward creating peace in the Middle East. To understand the contrast, that would be like giving Elliot Ness and Al Capone the award for working together to end prohibition.

     The distinguished scholars from Norway haven't always gotten it wrong. In 1979 Mother Teresa was honored for her work as the Leader of the Order of the Missionaries of Charity.  Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov won in 1975 for his campaign for human rights in the Soviet Union and Martin Luther King Jr. won in 1964 in recognition of his campaign for civil rights. 

     Earlier this year, President Obama delivered the commencement address at Arizona State University.  The University declined to give the president the usual accompanying honorary doctorate saying his "body of work is yet to come." 

    Well said…. or, as they say in Texas, "He ain't done it yet. 

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

     "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity...." The opening lines of Charles Dickens classic A Tale of Two Cities serve as a reminder of the social parallels that existed between France and London in the years leading up to the French Revolution.  Dickens original work was not published as a complete novel but was revealed through weekly installments in the Dickens' literary periodical All the Year Round.  Readers who were hooked by the story line had to patiently wait as the drama of Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton unfolded from week to week.

     The war in Afghanistan is fast becoming a tale of two generals.  For General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in the field, it is the worst of times for the war.  It is an age of foolishness, and an epoch of incredulity.  It is a time of resurgence for the Taliban and retreat for a unified strategy for victory.  Speaking in London just over a week ago, General McChrystal told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that a military strategy that relied solely on drone missile strikes and Special Forces operations would lead to "Chaos-istan."  His comments were directed at Vice-President Biden's recommendation that drones and Special Ops, not more troops, will lead to victory.  He also said, "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome.  This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support." 

     But waiting is exactly what General McChrystal is being forced to do as he becomes just one voice in a sea of voices advising the President on Afghanistan.  Just five months ago, General McChrystal was put in charge of U.S. and NATO forces with much fanfare and promises of a new strategy in a war President Obama has called, "fundamental to the defense of our people."  Also speaking of Afghanistan the President said, "This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.  Those who attacked America in 9-11 are plotting to do so again.  If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

     But as pressure from the Left increases and support for healthcare reform, the linchpin of President Obama's domestic agenda, decreases the President seems content to put General McChrystal's recommendations on hold until further notice.  Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confirmed that General McChrystal has requested between 30 and 40 thousand more troops but then admitted he is "sitting on the report" until the White House decides on an overall strategy for the war.  That may take some time since President Obama has been so busy he hasn't even spoken to General McChrystal more than three times since the initial troop request was made.  This stands in stark contrast to President Bush who spoke regularly with General Pretraeus as he worked on a strategy for turning the war around in Iraq. 

      The President has stressed the need for time for a complete assessment of the war and there appears to be no rush.  How unlike the $767 billion stimulus bill which had to be passed so quickly members of congress didn't even have time to read it.  It is also unlike healthcare reform, which must be passed this year because the country can't wait a moment longer for government controlled healthcare.   

     When President Bush called for a new strategy in Iraq General David Petraeus came to Capitol Hill to make the case for a new direction in person.  General McChrystal would like to testify in support of a new strategy for Afghanistan but Gates has said there will be no testimony until the White House decides on a strategy.  So, let's see if I have this straight.  The President doesn't want to read General McChrystal's report on what should be done in Afghanistan and he doesn't want congress to hear what General McChrystal says should be done in Afghanistan until after he decides what he is going to do.  This may sound like putting the cart before the horse but it is actually deciding to push the cart after putting the horse out to pasture. 

     For retired General James Jones, President Obama's national security advisor it is the best of times in Afghanistan. It is the age of victory and the epoch of belief.  Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union" Jones said, "I don't foresee the return of the Taliban.  Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling."  It is ironic that General Jones comments came right after eight American soldiers died in one of the fiercest battles of the eight-year war. 

     So, which tale of the two generals will President Obama accept?  The general in the field who commands the forces in Afghanistan or the general behind the desk who commands the bureaucrats in Washington?  President Obama would do well to follow the example of his predecessor and listen to General McChrystal.  Iraq is well on the way to being a stable country with a limited form of democracy and a sustainable future.  Afghanistan can enjoy the same outlook if President Obama will listen to right general. 

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss