On this day in 1789, George Washington took the very first presidential oath of office. His inauguration on the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City was the beginning of a grand experiment. Although the fledgling nation had been in existence since 1776, it had only an ad hoc government throughout most of the American Revolution, then switched to a very weak Articles of Confederation in the 1780s. At Washington’s inauguration, the new Constitution also was inaugurated. The question in everyone’s mind was whether it would or could work.

Ten thousand citizens were present to witness the first inaugural. Washington, at six-foot, three inches, looked every bit the part of a president. Of course, he already had won the confidence of Americans by his leadership during the war. They now looked to him to transfer his leadership from military matters to those of civil government. Everything he did would be seen as a precedent.

After he repeated the oath of office, Washington then kissed the Bible and went inside to deliver his inaugural address in the newly improvised Senate chamber. The address was short, but focused on the need for a strong Constitution, the addition of a Bill of Rights [which came along two years later], and how government was to be for the public good. As was his practice as general of the army in the war, he took no pay other than reimbursement for actual expenses.

At the end of his address, he and a number of the legislators and local politicians then walked to St. Paul’s Chapel to pray. He knew this new nation would need all the prayer it could get. It really was a grand experiment. Many thought it would fail. One of the reasons it did not can be traced directly to the wisdom George Washington brought to the presidency and to the precedents he set, not the least of which was to step down after serving two terms, thus laying to rest the fear that the presidency would evolve into just another kingship.

Excellent character in high office is a requisite for success in government. Washington set the bar high. We can’t say the same for all of his presidential successors, but we can, on this day, honor the good start he gave us. May we work now to preserve that heritage.

Rick Santorum had to leave the campaign trail this weekend as his three-year-old daughter Bella was hospitalized with pneumonia. Her condition was serious, but now seems to be improving. Santorum was up with her most of one night; he said she was really struggling. What makes this even more poignant is that Bella has Trisomy 18, a genetic disorder that usually takes a child’s life in the first year. Her prognosis is not good; only rarely does one with this condition last until the teenage years.

What this whole episode underscores is the Santorums’ dedication to the culture of life. Most parents nowadays, when informed of a birth defect, opt for abortion. The Santorums refused to do so—not just this once, but twice. Back in the mid-1990s, they had another birth trauma. Their unborn child at that time also had a birth defect. The doctor said, rather bluntly, that the child would die. Santorum and his wife, Karen, didn’t follow the advice of many to abort the child. Their pro-life convictions dictated otherwise. Santorum writes in his book It Takes a Family,

I must tell you that our reaction, after the shock and grief, was not to avoid the pain, the cost, or the struggle; it was not to get rid of the “problem,” and it was not to put the baby out of his misery like something that was less than human. Karen and I couldn’t rationalize how we could treat this little human life at twenty weeks’ gestation in the womb any different than one twenty weeks old after birth. At either age, he is helpless, unaware, and thoroughly dependent on us, his parents, to protect him, care for him, and love him unconditionally. So instead of giving our child a death sentence we gave him a name: Gabriel Michael, after the two great archangels.

Santorum then tells how it affected his family and him personally:

No, we had no choice but to fight to save our son’s life. We did all we could, including intrauterine surgery, but our son was born prematurely, and after two hours in our arms, he died. Gabriel died as a cherished member of our family—forever—having known only love in his brief time on earth. Life changes us all, but often nothing like death. At that moment, eternity became reality. After Gabriel, being a husband and father was different, being a legislator was different. I was different.

I honor that kind of commitment. It’s a commitment based on the Biblical principle that each person is made in the image of God and deserves to be treated as a valuable member of a family and a society. Later in his book, Santorum clearly identifies the seared conscience this society has developed over the years:

The social critic Christopher Lasch was right when he said, “Every day we tell ourselves lies so that we can live.” Americans get up every day in a country that permits, fosters, and on some levels even encourages the killing of the same number of children every year as there are people in Maine. And yet the vast majority of us do nothing. We tell ourselves that there is nothing we can do; or that it is sad, but necessary; or that the country is better off without those unwanted children; or that having an abortion is wrong, but you can’t impose your values on someone else. Many Americans simply don’t think about it at all, because they aren’t getting hurt. As another saying goes: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Santorum and his family are exhibiting for the entire nation what a Christian family ought to be. We need more of those models. We need people like Rick Santorum in positions of leadership for the sake of the moral foundation of our society.

For years, I have commented to as many people as I could that a movie needed to be made of the life of Whittaker Chambers. His story is one so dramatic, so significant historically, and so grounded in spiritual reality that it begs to be told.

Of course, he already has told it in his magisterial autobiography Witness. Clearly one of the seminal books of the twentieth century, it reveals the inner struggle of a man who grew up in a terrible family situation, gave himself over to the revolutionary communist faith, worked in the communist underground to undermine America’s government … then break from that faith to turn to God, where he found ultimate meaning for his life.

He then, in a real sense, gave his life to try to save America from the hidden enemy that wanted to destroy it. His “witness” to the Congress about what he knew of that underground, and the controversy over the role of Alger Hiss as one of his communist compatriots, became front-page news from 1948-1950.

Witness emerged in 1952 and raced to the top of the bestseller list. Yet so few know anything about Whittaker Chambers today.

I, however, have been so fascinated by his tale that I have a full semester course I teach on him and his wonderful book. I’ve also completed a book manuscript that will be published later this year that showcases the similarities and differences between Chambers and Ronald Reagan. The title will be The Witness and the President: Whittaker Chambers, Ronald Reagan, and the Future of Freedom. I’ll let you know when that’s available.

But the reason for this post today is that I discovered there are now seasoned professional filmmakers who are serious about chronicling Chambers’s life and his contribution to the soul of the nation. They need the financial wherewithal to make the film a reality and are seeking to find other interested individuals who can contribute to ensuring this production sees the light of day.

I urge you to visit the website that describes the vision for the film and to prayerfully consider helping with the costs of production. To view the site, just click here.

We are a largely superficial people who don’t think deeply about life and the consequences of our actions. This movie can be one important corrective to our societal malady. Please give it your support.

A voice from the American past has a message for us today. His name was James Garfield, who was elected president in 1880. Four years earlier, on the centennial anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Congressman Garfield—who also was an ordained Disciples of Christ minister—offered this sage insight in a speech commemorating American independence:

Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. …

If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

In short, the Congress, and the government as a whole, are, in the words of a common cliché, merely a reflection of the people who put them in power. If our current Congress is corrupt, we have only ourselves to blame. If the presidency has been debased by class-warfare ideology, again we have to point the finger at ourselves.

Will we learn our lesson after what we have endured the past three years? The 2010 congressional elections show some promise that we have, but we’ll have to wait until November 2012 to know for sure.

Cartoonist Michael Ramirez has been highlighting some really stark comparisons in his political cartoons lately. The other day I shared his view on modern society’s upside down perception of heroes and villains. He’s back today with another poignant contrast:

I’m kind of fed up with this “we’re the 99%” baloney, which casts millionaires and billionaires as the other 1% who are ruining the world. In actuality, anyone making just above $300,000 per year is part of that 1%, which means that it’s not made up primarily of the super rich. To me, $300,000 is super rich, but compared to the Warren Buffetts and Bill Gateses of the world, it’s just a very good salary. What’s really going on with the Occupy Wall Street movement is simple Marxism, dressed up in different clothes. The goal is to overturn American society as it exists today.

Well, there are things I would like to see overturned, but not capitalism or the significance of private property. Property and liberty go hand in hand. Our Founders knew they were inseparable. If individuals don’t own property, who will? Answer: the government.

It’s time to see these occupiers for what they are and respond accordingly. Breaking up the unsanitary tent city in New York was a good start. What will that achieve? Fewer murders, rapes, thefts, and harassment of honest business people. I don’t normally think much of NYC’s mayor Bloomberg, but in this case, he finally did what was necessary.

I’ll stand with those who believe in Christian foundations, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional government. They are the hope for the future.

I had something else I wanted to write about today, but the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial yesterday is overshadowing all other events. Fine. I have a few things to say about that.

I was watching as the verdicts on the various counts were read: not guilty of murder, not guilty of manslaughter, not guilty of child neglect/abuse, guilty on all counts of lying. My first reaction? What a travesty. Now that I’ve had time to ponder the verdicts some more, and can back away from my initial emotional response, I have concluded the following: it’s a travesty.

I can see why the jury might not have come in with a guilty verdict on outright murder—there are some questions that remain unanswered about how little Caylee Anthony died. Yet the mountain of circumstantial evidence that Casey was somehow involved, or at the very least didn’t care about her daughter’s wellbeing, is overwhelming. How could she not be found guilty of child neglect? She didn’t report Caylee was missing for a month. During that time, she was out partying. She even got a tattoo that said, in Italian, “Beautiful Life.” The prosecution’s claim that she wanted to be rid of her daughter, who was keeping her from “enjoying” her life, rings true.

And why all the lying, for which she was convicted? Why would she go to such outlandish lengths as to fabricate the existence of a nanny/housekeeper? Her entire story was one long string of lies, easily demolished by investigators. The only reason I can figure why she built this house of cards was to cover up for the death of her daughter. And why cover it up if it had only been an accident? Why, when Caylee’s body was found, was there duct tape over her face? Why did Casey’s car have the stench of a decomposing body?

How in the world could a jury come back with “not guilty” on all the most significant counts? If they truly believe she lied so profusely, there had to be something significant to lie about. To conclude that she lied on all matters relating to the death, and not to connect those lies to culpability regarding the death itself is really rather incomprehensible.

I’m not the kind of person who calls for vigilante justice when an injustice occurs in the system. I believe in the rule of law, as I’ve stated so many times in this blog. I know a jury has to take into account “reasonable doubt,” but in this case, please forgive me if I think the jury misunderstands that term. Just because some shred of doubt may exist, that’s not the same as reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient if there is enough of it; to most people following the trial, the circumstantial evidence was convincing.

If Casey Anthony is innocent, so is O.J. Simpson.

This is another miscarriage of justice. What rubs salt into this societal wound is the defense team itself, another in a long list of criminal defense teams that give a bad name to the profession. The lead man, Jose Baez, used the verdict to rail against the death penalty. It seems he has an agenda. Another of the team lashed out against lawyers who commented on the case on television. Overall, they indicated that Casey’s character was maligned unfairly. It seems to me that her character is quite clear, and anything negative said about her can be backed up by her lifestyle. And what did this defense team offer as an alternative explanation for Caylee’s death? Pure speculation. Drowned in a pool. Where was the evidence for that? Fortunately for them, the entire Anthony family seemed to be dysfunctional enough to make a jury believe anything was possible.

What is she going to do now? Get a “reality” television show? Write a bestselling book? Don’t be surprised. We are a culture that thrives on this type of “entertainment.” Perhaps that jury is simply a reflection of who we are collectively.

Scary.

The whole Anthony Weiner incident has left me deeply disturbed about the tenor of our society. That’s nothing new, of course, since I believe man in sinful and plays out that sinfulness continually. Yet this particular episode I find particularly perturbing. Let me see if I can explain why.

Weiner himself is what I always expected him to be; I’m less concerned about him personally than I am about other aspects of this. The media, both liberal and conservative, seem to be painting the women involved as victims of a sexual predator. There’s no disputing Weiner is a sexual predator, but if these women were victims, they were more than willing to be victimized.

One of them, Megan Broussard, has conducted interviews over the past two days, one on ABC, the other on Sean Hannity’s Fox program. I watched the latter. First of all, I was not impressed with her grasp of basic morality. She thought it would be “fun,” I guess, to banter sexually with a married congressman. Only when she feared her tweets would become public, or the pictures she sent him would be displayed on the Internet did she decide to preempt that exposure by speaking up. Even now, she doesn’t seem to have any real concept of having done anything inappropriate—at least on her part. And when asked if Weiner should remain a congressman, she had no opinion, saying that it was up to the voters in his district.

She is a microcosm of the state of morality in America at this time, I fear. She obviously doesn’t represent the morality of all, but I do wonder if she is representative of the majority: morally clueless.

Even now, only a slim plurality of Weiner’s constituents think he should step down. He may be able to ride this out. His arrogance is that great.

I think back on the Clinton impeachment. Even though it was evident that he had abused the trust given him by the electorate, and that he had committed perjury, public opinion polls indicated that about 2/3 of the country didn’t want him removed from office. I recall being dispirited over that at the time.

Just who are we as a people?

I want to believe better about us, but I don’t know if I can. After all, we put Barack Obama into the highest office in the land.

There is no golden age in our history where everyone was Christian and all was well, but there certainly was a time when we, as a society, had a keener understanding of eternal right and wrong, and when we veered off course, we at least felt guilty.

Does genuine guilt exist as a force in America anymore? Only by comprehending guilt will we ever seek forgiveness and reconciliation with God. I hold the firm conviction that nothing less than an explicitly Christian moral standard, and a firm belief in the transforming power of a Spirit-filled existence, will suffice to hold our society together. Without that basis, we will spin out of control.

I’m reminded of a quote from Christian statesman Robert Winthrop, who, in a speech to the Massachusetts Bible Society in 1849, pointed out a significant truth:

All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or the bayonet.

Here’s the rub: do we still have enough people who live by individual self-government to make the difference, or are we in the process of losing all moral restraint? The reason I write and teach is that I believe there is still hope. I hope I’m right.