The past two editions of Observations have been, if not political in nature, at least triggered by news from the world of politics (presidential behavior at a state funeral, and presidential pardons of the unsavory sort).  Thinking about what to write in this week’s post, I promised myself that I would not refer to presidential politics.  What, then?  Officiating in the NFL?

But I can’t help myself.  I came across a comment by Donald Trump that got me thinking.

At one of the many executive order signing events last week, a reporter asked the president about a critical comment made by Elon Musk regarding an announcement about funding for the president’s Stargate AI project.  “Were you bothered by the criticism?” the reporter asked.  “No, no,” President Trump answered.  “The people in the deal are very, very smart people.  But Elon, one of the people he happens to hate.”  Then he added, “But I have certain hatreds of people too.”

The interview moved on quickly to China and any leverage the Chinese might have with Russia in terms of ending the war in Ukraine. Continue reading →

We’ve been hearing a lot about pardons of the presidential sort.  Both former President Biden and President Trump have used, some would say abused, their power to pardon. A couple of clarifications and then an observation:

1. The pardons appear to be constitutional, Article II reading in part, “The President …shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” For our purposes, we will use the term pardon, understanding it to mean both reprieve (think a commuted sentence) and pardon. We may not like them, but presidential pardons are not against the law. In Federalist #74, Alexander Hamilton, with Shay’s Rebellion in mind, thought a presidential power to pardon might be helpful as a strategy to insure domestic tranquility. Again, while the recent pardons seem to have done little to insure domestic tranquility, they are allowed by the Constitution.
2. Just because they pass constitutional muster does not mean we have to like them. Most objective scholars and commentators agree that among the pardons issued by both recent presidents are cases of shameless partisan politics and grievous reversals of justice. If you’d like to argue whose pardons are more grievous or which pardoner is more corrupt, please go to your favorite social media site to do so.
3. Presidential pardons are not unusual, even if the recent ones seem unusually unsavory. By one estimate the total number of presidential pardons granted since the Constitution was ratified may exceed 40,000. Lincoln’s pardon of Patrick Murphy pictured in the header was granted to a mentally disabled private sentenced to death for desertion. Not unsavory at all.

Continue reading →

Some of the internet cranks were cranky about Garth Brooks and Trisha Yearwood singing John Lennon’s “Imagine” at last week’s funeral service for President Jimmy Carter. While I did not take to social media to express my opinion, I did wonder about the choice of that particular song for the National Cathedral service. “Imagine there’s no heaven/It’s easy if you try/No hell below us/Above us, only sky.” Not exactly sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life.

Apparently “Imagine” was sung at the request of the Carter family, it being a favorite of the president. Had it been a more typical funeral service and had I been the officiant, I would have suggested playing a recording of the song at the funeral luncheon in the church basement following the service. But it was a state funeral, and I wasn’t the officiant. I don’t know if there was a luncheon in the cathedral basement following the service.

Anyway, the internet cranks sent me to You Tube to watch parts of the service. Yes, “Imagine” is a silly song and not appropriate for a church funeral. But there’s another thing I noticed: former presidents, like former pastors, don’t always take the worship of the Living God seriously enough. Continue reading →

I am not exceptional.  I don’t mean that in some self-deprecating way.  I mean it in the sense that rules apply, and norms and reasonable expectations are usually met. I am not exceptional, nor should I expect or demand to be exempted from rules, norms, and reasonable expectations.  All around us, however, we see a demand for exemptions and exceptions.  Sometimes it seems as if exceptions don’t just prove the rule, they are the rule.

We Presbyterians like to think of ourselves as “decently and in order” people (1 Corinthians 14:40), but too often church messes are caused by pastors or congregations convinced that their situation is exceptional, that rules and standards apply to others but not to them.

The rules of a Homeowners Association are meant to make life more pleasant for all the folks in the neighborhood, but for too loud music, mis-built fences, or poorly parked cars, some homeowners assert a personal exemption from the agreed-upon rules.  And tough luck to all the neighbors who don’t like it.

Speed limits may be a good idea for most people, but not when we’re late for work, the kids have to get to school, or we don’t want the party to start without us. “Officer, you don’t understand. Can’t you make an exception?” Continue reading →

Recently I was reading a journal article by a scholar I have read and respected over the years. In fact, the article was the transcript of an address he had given just this past October. It was recent. In his address the speaker sought to locate himself and his audience in terms of the issue before them. He asked a series of “who are we?” questions, some with answers provided by thinkers from previous we eras. Then he narrowed his thoughts to himself and his audience. Among the questions he asked was, “Who are we at the beginning of the twenty-first century?”

The premise of his question, “who are we at the beginning of the twenty-first century?”, is about the only point in the paper with which I disagreed. Maybe this past October, but as we have now slipped into 2025, it just doesn’t feel like the beginning of this century. In fact, as the Times Square ball dropped in the final seconds of Tuesday evening, we had come to the end of the first quarter of the twenty-first century. It is not yet mid-game or halftime. However, the end of the first quarter and the beginning of the second just don’t feel like the opening minutes of the game. Maybe Winston Churchill would call it the end of the beginning.

I had already been thinking about the end of the first quarter of the century and the beginning of the second as I read the journal article. Whether you are reading the email or the online version of this piece, you will notice the “25 Years” at the top or on the sidebar of this post. 25 years, a quarter century. It’s going to remain there all year long. Continue reading →