Fred’s library included books on speaking, elocution, and famous orators. He studied style, delivery, and content. As a lifelong learner he focused on clarity in his speaking and writing. He enjoyed tracing philosophical thought through generations, as well.

Character Matters
Browsing through a book flea market, I found a large four hundred fifty page leather bound, gilt-edged volume of “Famous After Dinner Speeches” delivered between 1875 and 1895 in Boston and New York. After digging deeply for the nickel it cost, I took it home and began reading through them.
In those speeches were many issues completely relevant today. As I studied them I saw a common thread: dignity. “A man is honored for what he gives, not for what he gets.”
In this time (1981) I see an attack on this principle. Recent surveys show that the “I am for #1” is the primary motivator. The sale of books on aggression and winning by intimidation regardless of the effect on character have skyrocketed. We are changing our definition of good and evil. That is vital. When we redefine the base as noble, our foundational values are gone. I see this change coming quickly and needs reversing.
When I was a kid among the poor (the socially acceptable phrase is underprivileged, but all we lacked was money – we had everything else, so I prefer to say poor) even the most impoverished had respect for Christian values. We had respect for those with strong character and integrity who didn’t get rich by whatever means were available. The ends definitely did not justify the means.
America operated on Christian principles, even if the population wasn’t scripturally based and “born again.” This is evaporating. The definitions of morality are being redone. I cannot think of anything more critical than understanding the source of definitions and the way we operate.
In business, leadership responsibility is perpetuity, not net profit. Profit is important because it allows for an ongoing institution, but it isn’t the basic principle. It is the responsibility of those privileged to lead to provide for the organization to continue. Inadequate management can wreak havoc on businesses that have provided livelihoods for employees and communities alike. Often it is a lack of character, short-term thinking, and failure to understand their leadership responsibilities.
Effective leadership precedes profit. Revenue is not the goal, but a means to the goal. Chasing money alone weakens an organization and often results in short-term decisions and compromise. It creates an environment which denies the dignity of longevity and perpetuity.
A value structure which has a long-term perspective is an essential part of dignity in business and in personal living. Allowing values to deteriorate into “whatever works” is the way to failure and defeat.

This week think about: 1) Fred saw these trends in 1981. What are you seeing today that concerns you in business, home, church, and community? 2) How are you creating personal habits to live with dignity? 3) Who is a leading influencer in your life?
Words of Wisdom: “Effective leadership precedes profit.”
Wisdom from the Word: “Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, outstanding in dignity, outstanding in power.” (Genesis 49:3 NET Bible)

Weekly Thought – May 22, 2018

Fred understood human nature better than most. He was never shocked because he grasped the depth of our depravity, but also celebrated the heights to which we could soar in the Spirit. He enjoyed thinking about philosophical elements of society. The separation of church and state is an example.

God and America

In their writings, memorials, statues, public utterances, and their deepest thoughts, our founding fathers demonstrated their faith in the Divine. When they advocated the separation of church and state were they being hypocritical? No, I think not. They simply understood it better than we do today. Separation was not to isolate or dwarf either.

We have confused the issue of religion in politics with the theory of separation. These are very different concepts which the media and unknowledgeable, biased people treat as synonymous.

The basic tenet of separation is to keep two major bureaucracies (church and state) from uniting and thereby combining treason and heresy under the same authority. If a person became offensive he could be declared treasonous and if that failed, marked as a heretic. The chance to escape was slight.

The union of church and state refused equal freedom to denominationalism. The elimination of choice between denominations would be extremely unhealthy. Personally, I know and respect a great many of the current religious leaders, but I do not know a single one I would risk handing over leadership for all of Christendom. The dispersion of church leadership is an advantage of denominationalism.

When a human leader has the choice between the visible power of politics with money/power and the invisible power of God, the temptation is great to turn toward the visible which can be controlled, neglecting the invisible which is intended to control him.

Unfortunately, we are seeing a revival of the concept of civil religion. To say that morality comes only from the Christian faith, in my view, is untrue. There is a great need for stronger morality in America. I am grateful for greater depth of our moral fiber. But I believe to say it can only come from Christians is not true.

I appreciate the effort to revitalize America. We need it. However, I am afraid of any group who indicates that when we choose them as leaders we automatically get the exclusive sponsorship of God. Quoting religious platitudes can hardly deliver God to our nation. Who knows if He is through with us, but if He is elections can’t return Him.

It is important that I am searching to be on God’s side, not promising that He is on mine. Am I saying religion (and Christian faith) should not enter into political decisions? Certainly not! To say a man’s convictions should be kept out of any of his decisions is to suggest he become schizophrenic. In seeing the validity of a man’s faith in his political life, we also see the wisdom of not creating a society in which a man could be hanged on the dual horns of treason and heresy.

This week think about: 1) How do I react to Fred’s thoughts on church/state? 2) Why do I participate in the political system? 3) When do I most effectively allow my faith to influence my work, church, family?

Words of Wisdom: “To say a man’s convictions should be kept out of any of his decisions is to suggest he become schizophrenic.”

Wisdom from the Word: “He said to them, ‘Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’” (Matthew 22:21 NET Bible)

Weekly Thought – May 15, 2018

Fred’s early 1980s speeches reflect the depth of his thinking. He always went to the fundamental principles, then fleshed them out with current illustrations. These observations about America reflect the early weeks of Reagan’s administration.

American Musings

We have to think maybe the only real mandate President Reagan got from the people was to replace Jimmy Carter. He was elected, to my observations, not on confidence, but on hope. And hope is such a tenuous political emotion – so often disappointed. The masses knew we needed a change. It is still for this administration to establish that confidence so necessary for a leader if he is going to be truly constructive rather than a poll watcher. Sometimes I think we are getting to be political “poll cats.” Pardon the stinky pun.

Can we think together about what it takes to build confidence on hope’s foundation? America was built by confidence in the founding fathers whom we still revere. They were men who were willing to serve the nation even at a personal sacrifice. Now we have shifted to those who ask to run the country to take power, not to serve it. Those willing to serve were the statesmen while those anxious to serve are the politicians.

We must once again feel America has a destiny – more than survival. Mere survival will not inspire the energy and commitment w need for world leadership. As Faulkner said, “The life worth living does more than survive, it prevails.” When our highest concern is survival then compromise becomes our modus operandus. When communism first threatened the world those who chose survival were represented by the scholar who said, “Better Red than dead.”

Those who refuse to cave in to fear are saying with Solzhenitsyn “Better dead than a scoundrel.” He was willing to put aside risk survival for the life that prevails. He, like Bonhoeffer, was offered survival in exchange for compromise and silence. They both chose excellence over mere existence. Only when life is really worth living is it worth dying for.
I have had some concern that some of our past state department leaders have not believed us as a people capable of leading and therefore adopted compromise.

If the character of our people has weakened, if we have run our course in defense of freedom, and if leisure has become our goal, then compromise is all that is the only option open to us… and that will be for a short time. Compromise is a downward spiral, just as the prevailing attitude draws us upward.

This week think about: 1) How are these 1981 thoughts pertinent to today? 2) What did Fred see that I can apply to my own thinking this week? 3) When do I accept compromise in my work, faith, or family?

Words of Wisdom: “Only when life is really worth living is it worth dying for.”

Wisdom from the Word: “Dear friends, if our conscience does not condemn us, we have confidence in the presence of God.” (1 John 3:21 NET Bible)