A "War" in Theology

The greatest ideological war is being fought in Christianity today and many don’t even realize it.

The war is between what is called “Objective truth and Relative/Subjective truth”; or “Modernism and Post-Modernism”. While it is very difficult to clearly define the two positions, it is clear that neither “side” is free from problems. Both are imperfect when stretched to their ultimate degrees.

This “war” is largely the same as the conflict between Jesus Christ and the Jewish hierarchy in the first century. It asks the questions, “What is God’s truth?”  “What should I believe in and how should I believe it?” The polarized positions ask “How should I act”, often only in conjunction with the Objective or Subjective starting position.

The objective truth side claims all truth rests with God and we humans can only seek to uncover it, but never truly “Know It”.  The other, the subjective truth side claims that because we can never know God’s truth or have language to describe it, it is of little or no value, since human beings can’t discuss it. Therefore truth must rest within humankind as only then can we “see and discuss” it.

One can defend Objective truth only by assuming that it is possible for human beings to take up a “view from nowhere; but I don’t believe in “views from nowhere,” some argue. 

I don’t believe in objective truth or relativism (AS ultimate truth), either. “Moreover, I don’t want you to believe in objective truth or relativism either, because the first concept is corrupting the church and its witness to the world, while tilting at the second is wasting the precious time and energy of a lot of Christians.”¹ Nonetheless I will tilt at both.

“Postmodern thought developed in the aftermath of the Holocaust, as deeply ethical European intellectuals reflected on the atrocities their peers had perpetuated or acquiesced to. Postmodern thinkers realized that these megalomaniacs, like Hitler, used grand systems of belief to justify their atrocities. Those systems of belief – which the postmodern thinkers called “metanarratives,” but which also could have been called “world views” or “ideologies” – were so powerful they could transform good European intellectuals into killers or accomplices. They thought back over European history and realized (as C. S. Lewis did) that those who have passionate commitment to a system of belief will be most willing, not only to die for it, but to kill for it.”² And that would be wrong on the face of it.

The post-modern thinkers defined “truth” as resting within the individual since to believe a “metanarrative” often allies one with others with whom we disagree. Additionally, objective truth is tricky.  We don’t have words, nor can we ever have words, to describe Objective truth or “God’s truth”; what some have claimed is the “view from nowhere” since human’s can’t comprehend it. Objective truth also has the unfortunate tendency to say “This way is the right way”, since “God ordains” it.

Conversely, many postmodernists are stuck with the position of “It works for me”, subjective truth driven to its ultimate edge, that the “self” (small “s”) or the society is the only repository of what is “true or good”; that all that is good is subject to my view of it. One claim is that this validates the life of Hitler if he believed what he was doing was “right”, and he certainly did.

The tree would make no sound when falling in the forest without “ME” to hear it. Neither position is defensible for very long yet both are true; and I will attempt to argue for both of them in an attempt to decipher “God’s truth”.

I have found myself on both sides of the argument.  When encountering Objective truth believers, I often argue for Relative truth and conversely when confronted with the “I am the center of the universe- that is my opinion and I’m sticking to it” people, I often argue for Objective truth. Do I like arguing? Decidedly, and unfortunately, so.  It is the best way I know to reach concordance. But it is often quite counterproductive as it tends to polarize issues …and tick people off……

Polarization  is what has happened to Christianity in the last few hundred years.  One of the most unfortunate aftermaths of the Reformation was the splitting of the single method system of the Western Roman Catholic church, however much in need of reforming, into a blithering array of Protestant belief structures and denominations; subjectivism in possibly its worst guise.

We now argue over whether one has to be dunked or sprinkled in baptism. Similarly we argue over the meaning of words in scripture to the extent that we conclude “one must be a Christian to be saved”, (with “saved” defined by some version of travel to heaven rather than hell) completely disregarding or demeaning the possibility of other faiths and citizens being spiritual beings, close to God. Our arrogance to avow there is only one God, but that God only favors the man-made religion of Christianity, thus dooming every other creature to perdition is unsavory and un-Christ-like in the extreme, but a product of Objectivism in its worst guise.

But we humans need to define truth in some way. Either as God sees it or we, or our society, sees it.

When I encounter the rigid set of dogma that passes for Christianity today I am dismayed. Peter C. Moore did the evangelical community a great service when he helped us “Disarm the secular Gods”.³  But as Phillip Kenneson points out, “He left the job unfinished- hence when Moore rightly unmasked the secular god of relativism, he left her consort-objectivism- fully enthroned”. A Buddhist might argue for the “middle way” the center of yin and yang, realizing that polarized positions are untenable for obvious reasons- they don’t take the “other” into consideration. Even with love as our objective, we cannot love that which we believe is wrong, hence the dichotomy to “love the sinner and hate the sin”. Frankly, you can’t do it. If you think Islam or homosexuality is “wrong” you cannot “Love” its practitioners.  You can show them kindness and compassion and hope that counts as “LOVE”, but I might suggest true love involves something more than tolerance. True love is more active than passive, more “out reaching” than tolerating.

Jesus faced this same dilemma when he came to earth. The Jewish leaders were Objectivists in that they knew God’s Law, all 613 of them, and could quote much of it. Jesus, on the other hand was more of a Relativist when he said, “The Kingdom of God is within you”. Then He also suggested pulling our donkey out of the hole it was trapped in on the Sabbath. It was the “right” thing to do, He avowed. Yet how can he claim to believe in an Almighty, Theistic God, “The Father,” yet lay claim to relativism? Surely if God exists he is a perfect being containing God’s Absolute Truth?

Here then was the dichotomy and even Jesus is wishy washy about the outcome one might think.

I will later submit that he was not.

Many, including Kennisen, point out that the Enlightenment was the root of Absolutism. Locke, Descarte, Kant and others claimed a “theory of knowledge”  fueled by pure reason that helped to produce “many of the dichotomies that now appear self-evident: object/subject; realism/idealism; knowledge/opinion; fact/value; reason/faith; rational/irrational; public/private. This dualistic left or right philosophical tradition has taught us to think of knowledge as a picture or mirror of the way the world really is. Such a view of “knowledge,” however creates its own special set of problems – problems rooted in our anxiety that our knowledge might not, in fact, mirror the world as it really is. In order to guarantee that no wholesale slippage takes place between our view of the world and the world as it really is, what we think we need is a theory of knowledge, a method for determining true pictures from false ones.

In short, this project of supplying language-secure foundations for knowledge, what we might call Epistemology (or even “Moral Philosophy”), is the attempt to assure ourselves that our pictures do, in fact, hook up with the world. Within such a view of knowledge, truth (or Truth) is not so much a concept as it is an entity “out there” in the world, waiting to be discovered; Truth is merely the word for the way the world really is which we are trying to picture or mirror with our knowledge. When human beings discover this Truth, picture it faithfully in their minds and mirror it accurately in their language, we say that they have “genuine” knowledge.  Moreover, such knowledge is “objectively truthful” when its status as true does not ultimately depend on the testimony of any person or group of persons. Indeed, the whole point of claiming that something is “objectively true” is to say that any person, unhindered by the clouds of unreason and the prejudices of self-interest, would come to the same conclusion.”⁴ A thing almost never true. 

If it were true we never should have left the Catholic Church, we should have “reformed it” as Luther intended.  Additionally, an absolutist could claim we must be assured that our picture hooks up with the world as it “ought to be” (God’s truth). …not what it “is”(Human truth) because what it is, is flawed.

One compelling argument for subjective truth is that language is subjective. While nuances of meaning may be detected by face to face encounters the written word is stuck in print. You can’t see me wink or smile or frown. Since language is subjective the only tools we have to deal with God are reason and language, or the amorphous “Faith” (more about this in a minute).  It is probably absolutely true…..wink.

This, often called “correspondence theory” of truth, that truth is “out there” and we must seek to discover it, engenders methodological doubt in the mind of the both the relativist and the absolutist.  It’s God’s truth not ours. We are always in doubt, because we can never truly “KNOW IT”.

“Epistemology” attempts to deal with the language nature of things at their limits of truth.  “What is truth” it asks? What are its limits? The field is littered with the bodies of moral philosophers and theologians who failed to answer its questions.

This “correspondence” theory of truth resulted in a series of disastrous arguments within the church. Is the body and blood of Christ at communion the “ACTUAL body (Catholic) or the SYMBOLIC body (Protestant). The dichotomy between Faith v. Works which so occupied the reformers in the 16^th century is another example. The answers to these questions in the mind of many must be one or the other because of our Cartesian heritage through the Enlightenment.

Truly, the questions at first seem incompatible we can’t rationally hold both positions, we have to choose, and from that choice flows ideology and dogma.

A friend has referred to the following exchange between Luther (German Catholic) and Zwingli (Swiss Protestant) when meeting in the town of Hesse (Luther’s ballpark) in October 1529. They did not agree on whether Christ was present in the sacramental elements of the Eucharist. The meeting was an attempt to resolve their differences. Luther began the debate by writing in chalk on a tabletop, "This is my body" Matt. 26:26.

The Zwinglian response; "is" means "represents" or "stands for." As proof he

offered John 6:63. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I

have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

Luther: I rest content with what Christ says, and He says: This is my body. Not even

the devil can change that. Therefore believe in the pure word of God and glorify

Him.

Zwingii: We urge you too to give up your preconceived opinion and glorify God. I do

not give up my text either, and you will have to sing another song.

Luther: You are speaking in hatred.

Zwingii: Then let John 6:63 cure your ignorance.

Luther: You are trying to overwork it.

Zwingii: No! No! This text will break your neck.

Luther: Don't brag. Our necks don't break so fast. You are in Hesse now not in

Switzerland.

 {The Columbia History of the World, Garraty & Gay ed. pp. 525-6)

My friend asked, “Are not these great theologians misguided by their insistence on their own

absolute truths?” The answer is “Absolutely, (wink) but for some timely reasons due to the impending schisms”. (One wonders how much ale they were downing at the time of the exchange).

This is what Christianity has become……. A “belief” oriented structure……. “What is it you believe, we ask? Our Christian churches are awash in belief structures. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior”, “Have you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord”, “are you ‘Born again’”; all questions designed to determine what it is that you believe.

I would submit that was not Christ’s way.  He neither asked the Jews to abandon the (absolutist) Law. In fact, He said He had come “to fulfill it”; nor did he tell us that God wants us to do only what we think is subjectively right.  Christ, like Buddha, tried to straddle a middle ground.  He called on us to dwell in the Kingdom of God, thus asking us to love the father, yet love our neighbor as ourselves, a decidedly “faith v. works” based, subjective position. In short he is asking us to do BOTH, NOT EITHER OR NEITHER; to be both Subjective and Objectivists, one might think. I contend, he IS asking us to do both.  First, accept the Objective truth that God exists and is good (Objective truth) through Faith. Second, know that our treatment of others is just as important (Subjective truth) through deeds.

1 John 4:20- 5:

 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

NIV

Matt 22:36-40

36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'   38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'   40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

NIV

If we are truly following Jesus we cannot choose between these two alternatives. We must accept both, which we have already affirmed, seems impossible. The secular Humanist or Atheist can only accept the latter, subjective, position.  For her/him there is no former objective position. That is her/his curse. Only subjective truth can exist for her/him. She/he has no supernal truth to turn to.  She/he can gussy it up by saying it is the “society” that defines truth, but that is not very satisfying if one lives in a society of cannibalism or Nazi Germany, Australia during the aboriginal wars, or the United states during the Indian wars. “Society” is a capricious mistress. 

But most of us are believers in one way or another. And that, I believe, is the crux of the matter and why I call myself a “First Century Christian”.

I must conclude that Dogma or Ideology, whether it be based on what I believe God wants or what I want, is unacceptable as an either/or, alone.  Neither a society nor Faith alone can dictate truth as a belief structure. I also must conclude that what I want is imperfect and unacceptable due to the presence of others. And what God wants is unknowable no matter how much we suspect we know it. It is “Faith” based.  Therefore my only tool is not reason or Faith alone rather it is Love and unlimited compassion which Jesus, Buddha and Krishna all sought.

So what must we believe in? My answer would be whatever you want as long as it is consistent with Love. The motto of the Disciples of Christ comes to mind. “In essentials unity, in non-essentials freedom and in all things love.”  (They do not concur on what is an essential)

What I am suggesting is that Christianity should not be solely about BELIEF structures, but rather, action structures. That our belief systems are shaped by factors often beyond our control and imperfect at best; shaped by many factors out of our control. That when we think we “Know”, we do NOT know. Jesus solution was to attempt to act in a way that would be consistent with the Godly virtue of unlimited compassion and love. He left the love of God up to the individual, “spirituality” and choice of religion or non-religion, if you will, both Jews and Gentiles, so to speak.  Spirituality, that is, relationship with God, knows no religion boundaries nor societal standard. This would be a death blow to objectivism in its rigid form but Christ,  through his first greatest commandment insists we look to spirituality with God not bound by religious labels.  God is neither a gentile nor a Jew.  Those are manmade structures.

The conclusion is that it is not what we believe but how we ACT that defines Christianity.

You do not have to accept my dogma, nor I, yours.  You don’t scorn me if you disagree with me nor I, you.  You don’t judge me…God, or time if one is a Buddhist, will do that.

It is not necessary for us to abandon the study of Moral Philosophy nor Theology.

On the contrary, we need to argue about right and wrong in order to see it better.

I often put a Coke can in front of students to give a lesson from the Lakota Sioux.  I suggest the can is “Truth”. Each of us sitting in a circle can see one perspective of the can. Some see the logo, others the label and still others the ingredient list. No one perspective is complete.  So the Lakota Sioux warrior before becoming a member, must travel throughout the Medicine Wheel (The World) to gain further perspective.  But no matter how much perspective one gathers only God would be able to see the bottom of the “Truth can”.  It is hidden from us.

Some leaders of the Emerging Church movement recognize the dignity of the individual to decide for himself about God, but also affirm something out there beyond humankind exists and needs to be dealt with. That is in sync with both Christ’s and Buddha’s teachings.

To suggest I could currently define this movement is wrong.  I could not.  (absolute truth-wink)

That which I can attest to, is that the Emerging Church movement is subjective, BUT NOT COMPLETELY relativist, and objective WITH LITTLE OR NO DOGMA.

It recognizes the dignity of the individual to decide for himself but suggests it is God powering the processes of life; clearly dualistic concepts. But isn’t that what Jesus two greatest commandments were?

The love of God is clearly Objective and the love of man is clearly Subjective.

Our BELIEF system cannot solve the dilemma.  To say “I exclude you from the conversation if you don’t believe thusly” is wrong. To say “I or my society decides who is acceptable” is wrong as well.

I am reminded that the Constitution of the United States is a document specifically designed to protect the rights of the MINORITY not the majority. The founders somehow knew that we, individually, must be protected so that society might be protected. It is a concept in complete concordance with Jesus’ teachings.

The process for followers of “The Way”, the First Century Christian, and all humankind, is not what you believe, but rather, that the motive, the means and the ends, need to be acts of love and compassion and kindness toward everyone. Many of our churches need to abandon the dogma of “my way or the highway” and embrace Love. It is all we really have.

                                                John P. Middleton

Footnotes and Bibliography

1 & 2  Philip Kennison, “There is no Such Thing as Objective Truth and It’s a Good Thing Too”

1 “Christian apologetics in the postmodern world”, Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Holcomb

2 Brian McLaren, unknown correspondence, letters to a colleague

3. Philip Kennison, ibid

A Discussion about Morality Among Nations

From Don;

John: Your e-mail of today, Monday, is excellent. (Of course, you are wrong in some of your assumptions about the morality of nations, etc., but don't forget, John, you're still a young man with plenty of time to grow.)

I think the question of the morality or the lack of it among nations has been established long ago by the actual behavior of of every state that

has been in existence since pre-historic Egypt, don't you think so?                                                                                                                                                                                                 

In her fine book, THE MARCH OF FOLLY, Barbara Tuchman writes in detail of the preparation for the First World War by the German Generals. In conversations among themselves and to their associates, they stated that Germany's superiority as a nation entitled them to conquer all of Europe as a "beginning" of world domination by Germany. The morality of such a course of action never seemed to enter their minds. Of course, this thought was frequently repeated by Hitler in the 1930's. The question of ethics or the morality of their proposals was absent there also.                                                                                                                                  

On page 5, in the book quoted above, Touchman writes: "For 2,500 years, political philosophers from Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton Nietzsche and Marks have devoted their thinking to the major issues of ethics and morals of nations, as well as to the rights of man. Few, except Machiavelli, who was concerned with government as it is, not as it should be, bothered with such things as the mere folly of ethics, although this folly has been, and is today, a chronic and pervasive problem."

In a speech to his friends, Otto von Bismark once stated: "Altruism? Among nations there is no such thing as altruism!"   And Charles De Gaulle stated flatly: "The Foreign Policy of France is what is good for France!"

I believe the topic of  "The morals and ethics among nations" is a good subject for discussion within our group, John. Since it involves psychology and philosophy as well as some other debatable subjects, discussion could be largely a matter of one's own, personal opinion, with not a great deal of factual evidence.  But, after all, that can sometimes heat up a discussion, can't it? Perhaps you might want to  prepare one or two actual or hypothetical situations where the morality of this action, rather than that other one, is,  or is not the best one to be followed, and why, eh?

Don

From John P. Middleton

Don, thank you for the comment about being young, although since I am  70, I am concerned that you vision at age 94 is a bit clouded with age.  70 is not young my friend. You are simply older. (Dare I say "ancient") The fact I am even alive to confront you is a miracle. I will not comment on your belief that I am "wrong" except to say that your email about nations (July 11) proves my point.

You state, "For 2,500 years, political philosophers from Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton Nietzsche and Marks have devoted their thinking to the major issues of ethics and morals of nations, as well as to the rights of man. Few, except Machiavelli, who was concerned with government as it is, not as it should be, bothered with such things as the mere folly of ethics, although this folly has been, and is today, a chronic and pervasive problem."

 In a speech to his friends, Otto von Bismark once stated: "Altruism? Among nations there is no such thing as altruism!" And Charles De Gaulle stated flatly: "The Foreign Policy of France is what is good for France!" Certainly your comment about Germany's generals proves my point. Total immoral disregard for the rights of other nations.

Concern for gov't as it IS rather than what it should be has ended the regimes of 1790's France, The Soviet Union, England during The American Revolution, and China today, and maybe America today. None of these were able to sustain their regimes for long. And, I might add, anyone who does not challenge government when they think it acts immorally is guilty of something between stupidity and treason.

In ancient times things were not comparable as States were monarchies and, as such might or might not have had a benign ruler. Those exceptions, Rome, Ancient Greece, etc. all fell due to internal economic and social problems that weakened the state. Had they been more concerned with righteousness they may have gone on much longer but they were consumed by greed.

In modern times where governments are representative, largely, nations fall when they ignore the people such as in Soviet Russia where lip service was paid to the communist ideal of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need", a noble statement of Marx's but completely unworkable due to that same greed. People and nations take the easy way out which most benefits them alone. But that is not to be lauded.

Arguably, Canada, The Scandinavian countries and a few more are the best and most modern examples of nations that listen to its citizen's needs, and ,as such, has a beneficial sort of morality at its core, noble principles, if you will. The United States once fit in that category and maybe still does, but I doubt it. Our constitution that was designed to protect the rights of the minority in the face of both the majority and the state, was remarkably new and beneficial. That is what gave it such impetus in its early years. But it cannot sustain itself in the milieu of greed that has overcome it. I'm talking here of the greed of both the rich and the poor. The ones who want it all and the ones who want someone else's.

As nations become greedy and act imperially, they lose their way and fall.....all of them.  There has never been a thousand year reign with the possible exception of ancient Greece and Egypt; and Egypt for different reasons. But neither of those were "imperial" after their early conquest regimes stabilized. In the early days yes, in the latter no.  Rome fell because its imperialism outstripped its economic ability.  Egypt was about commerce and the arts and Greece about scholarship and the arts. Both nation-states had long, long regime stability due to how they treated their citizenry and their neighbors ( with a couple minor ruler exceptions).

A nation which does not act with good moral purpose toward both its citizens and other nations will not last long. Self interest as per DeGaulle' comment is a recipe for disaster.

Particularly in the emerging world corporate government where corporations transcend national boundaries. The US's imperial actions in Iraq have earned us universal distrust, even scorn, from many trusted allies. How can that be beneficial to our nation?

How can we sustain the idea that we, who have less than 10% of the world's population, should consume 60% of its resources? Do you, as a humanist, not see the moral issue there?

Any nation which acts with disregard for morality, disregard for others, disregard for nations and disregard for its poor and sick and elderly, will shortly be replaced. It happens every time.

Unless we return (if that is the right word) to a national morality that is by the people, of the people and for the people and for others who are not our citizens, we will not survive long.

John P. Middleton

                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                 

Immorality and Nations

Morality and Nation-States

 I wanted to share some thoughts and get your response on the subject of "Is the state a moral entity, or by its nature, amoral". I will use Tom Hanks in "The Castaway" as my model.

Societies, by their very nature must be moral. Tom is alone on the island and entitled (by God?) to utilize everything there for his purposes. All the food, shelter, water and firewood, for example, is his.  It is a condition of Natural Law that it be so.

The minute "Joe", a newcomer, floats to the island, all bets are off.  Tom is no longer entitled to everything as he now belongs to a "society".  Tom has the immoral option of rejecting the society by killing Joe, but should he choose not to do that then he has willingly created a "state". A paradigm of societal standards, rules that govern how he and Joe behave.

This new state, "The Republic of Tom and Joe" has an implied equality standard within it. It is immoral for Tom to take 80% of the water for his own use, but if he is the stronger of the two, he may take it and create a "Republic  of Tom and Joe" law that says he is entitled to 80% of the water. But it will be an immoral law because it abrogates equality. Not "equal opportunity", mind you, for that is a fallacy. Joe can never have equal opportunity.  He came later, doesn't yet know where the spring is, etc. One of the great fallacies of America is that we have "equal opportunity", sheer nonsense.

Fast forward to the nation -states of today where inequality is rampant and even prized by those who are successful.  I am smarter, bigger stronger than you so I am entitled to more. All the way to the Libertarian nonsense of "I own the work of myself". So if I get rich enough to  buy the seafront of California, you can't swim at the Beach.

Nation -states, due to their complexity, pass all kinds of laws to avoid chaos.  And despite the Republican position of "If its legal it is moral", we know this to be untrue.

At the root core of every Democratic or near democratic nation-state, from the Republic of Tom and Joe to the USA, is the attempt to maximize the benefit to the citizenry. While dictatorships may have the goal of benefitting the person in power, that is not the case with democracies. If you wish now to make the case that the USA is a dictatorship of the elite and powerful, I could not disagree.

But politics aside for the moment, if a nation-state seeks "immoral" largess as the Republicans seem to be doing now, more for the rich and less for the poor,  or as might have been during the time of Louis XIV, for example ("let them eat cake"), where those in power take an uneven share of the state's production, what happens? Revolution.......ALWAYS....revolution.  Sometimes by force of arms and sometimes, as in China today, economic revolution which forces the state into a more democratic posture,  A more "Moral" posture. 

In short, nation-states MUST function in a moral manner or they won't last long. Is their morality perfect?  Certainly not!  But they must address their actions in a moral manner or risk chaos.

Now as to the position that nations are amoral when it comes to other nations, I would strongly disagree. The logical extension of this argument is strong nations should dominate weak nations since there is no moral imperative preventing them from doing that.  Why don't we invade Mexico and add ten states to the American union? It is better for everyone. The cost of doing it-minor, just threaten them with nuclear annihilation: Illegal immigration-solved:  the fate of the inhabitants-improved:  the standard of living- raised:  the opportunities- endless: the judicial system-improved: The drug cartels-prosecuted, etc. Why not? t is better for them and better for us.  We get cheap labor and they get the benefits of the USA.

The only answer is it is immoral for us to do that. Would we be afraid of Europe declaring war on us? Probably not, no sane nation would pursue that course first.  There would be protest, negotiation, but in the end the world would probably comply probably because the population of Mexico would welcome the improvements. But it is immoral to do so.

No nation can long pursue immoral ideals, witness Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or China,17th century France and many more....collapsed by their immorality. By their unfair treatment of the citizenry and other nations.

Now I grant you that the United States is moving ever closer to an immoral state, a state in which the rich get richer and the poor poorer and ignored. But we will not be able to sustain that forever.  The poor will rise up. Similarly, if we act imperially as we are doing in Iraq, maybe Afghanistan, and Libya, other nations and peoples will begin to decry us and no longer see us as moral. There was mention of how the Egyptians and Jordanians popular belief was  the "second Bush" election may have been stolen in Florida, and thus our government was just as corrupt as theirs and therefore they lost all respect for us.  We did not act in a sufficiently moral manner.

I want to further this conversation and await your response.

The Phoneless in Society

June 25, 2011

Mr. Randall L. Stephenson

Chairman, CEO and President

AT&T

208 S. Akard St.

Dallas, TX 75202

Dear Mr. Stephenson,

I would like you to regale you with a short story about AT&T that I am sure will amuse you.

We have been AT&T wireless customers for over ten years and Robb Hall at our local store, Wireless One In Bella Vista Arkansas,  is one of the best customer service people out there. He has helped us for more than ten years.

But my tale  began June 3 when I decided to take advantage of AT&T's offer to upgrade my system, with a new two year contract and new phones for my wife and I, several months before our contract expired.  What a nice offer!

We went to the AT&T Corporate store, 20 miles away in Rogers, Arkansas, to look at selection and features for the phones. We concluded a nice Motorola Atrix 4G would be just what the doctor ordered for $99.00 apiece.  But I thought I'd better check online first!  Lo and behold, online offered  a refurbished Atrix 4G phone at 49.99 each!  Such a deal!  We ordered them and they duly arrived several days later. Unfortunately we couldn't turn them on nor unlock them, no doubt due to our decrepit age.  We are both 70 after all.

So, we sent the phones back and asked for working ones.  Your nice customer service representatives  agreed to Fed Ex them to us, and we received the working replacements within a couple of days.  You then received the non- working originals back on 6-20-11.

The new phones were magnificent! We could get e-mail! Text! Go on Facebook and twitter! Check our minutes! Navigate and track our positions on the earth with a GPS! Magnificent!  Unfortunately, what we could not do was to figure out how to answer the phone, transfer our contacts, set up a speed dial system, or make a call. We are old. And we figured the problem was ours, so we took it to our local phone store in Bella Vista, AR,  where one of the aforementioned best customer service reps, Robb Hall, works.  Since we had ordered online Robb couldn't do much but took the time to educate us in how some of it worked. 

Robb patiently explained we were not educationally challenged and showed us where to go to download the manual, which we did.

We could make calls! Even receive them! Great.

But, in about two weeks it became apparent that a Motorola Atrix 4G was much too much phone for us. We don't text. We don't need to go online and tweet or twit or facebook or SOCIALLY NETWORK WITH ANYONE! We are apparently both Luddites and challenged in the social department. It is a major effort to text with arthritis of the thumbs, not to mention other decaying body parts. We need a phone to make calls!  Despite the fact that our children no longer communicate by any means other than text we keep attempting to call them.  Perhaps you could explain what "B4 C:md ph I" means.

Now the fun began. I called your online customer service center on Jun 23rd to say the phones were too much for us and we would like to exchange them. 

Endless wait for the disembodied voice to get me to a human...no option for that.  I could buy a new phone, check my bill online or amend my service plan but I could NOT, under any circumstance, talk to a human. I persevered.  Three redials,  a broken fingernail a few verbal mortal sins and several missed options later I got my human.  Whose response was "No problem!  Simply return the old phones to us using the USPS return sticker we provided and go to the AT&T store, decide which replacement phones you would like, then call us back, give us the model and we will send you the new one's". Oh Joy, Oh Rapture! Sounded fair to me! So we sent the old one's back and kept the tracking number.

I picked my wife up at work over lunch, and we drove the twenty miles to the store. We found a basic phone a Pantech Breeze II which my wife liked,  but the salesperson said we would have to wait until the old phones were received by AT&T to get the new one's......Otherwise $119.00 per phone.

"What?",  I asked, somewhat bemused. "We have to go without phones for two weeks or so while the mail system handles the return?", I asked rather stupidly. "Yes" was the reply. "Why then did your customer service people  tell me to return the phones which I did this morning and they are now in the hands of the USPS, an organization I would rather not mess with".

"I am sorry sir, whomever told you that online (someone named Gloria at God knows what location) exceeded her authority." 

"What do we do now", I asked, descending into a state of existential angst to rival Kafka on his best day.  "I have no phone."

"Perhaps if you go back online they can fix the problem", was the response. I was entirely too addled to see the irony in the statement. I drove wife back to work, drove home and proceeded to go online, and then recalled the Customer Service Center, a process similar to Dante's descent into the fifth circle of hell.

I began the process at 8:47AM, lunch and the visit to the AT&T corporate store was about noon and I was finished about 5:35PM. In that interim I talked to 7 people, three of whom attempted to help me.  Bonnie Capman in Huntsville, Alabama gave it a good shot. "I've corrected the records and you should have no problem now.  I have noted the file that you are to get the new phones at the upgrade rate."

So I returned to the Corporate store 20 miles away and spoke to Doreen Smithers who showed me the phones and said, "no, the records have not yet been altered and you must wait until AT&T receives the old phones....COMPANY POLICY!"  There it was, that dreaded word that strikes fear in the heart of every customer....Company Policy"...the decree from the great beyond. So I went home.

Back online, this time to two men, one who transferred me to a "supervisor",  who in the final analysis after more than thirty minutes online, told me there was nothing he could do....COMPANY POLICY...

I pointed out I had already paid for the old phones which were in the mail. Couldn't they just give me new ones at the upgrade price and if it turned out I was mistaken about returning the old ones, simply bill me for the new ones at the NON-UPGRADE price. 

Apparently not, "Because, (according to your Customer Service Supervisor) how do I know if you are telling the truth that you returned them." A rather interesting twist.  Imply the customer is lying and probably cheating you. Great customer service!

I said:

1) Here is the USPS tracking number. They have had it since 10:57:48 AM and it is now 3:20.

2) What difference does it make if I am lying you will simply bill me later.

3) Why must you receive the old phone, I have the SIM card, the old phone is useless.

4) Where did you hone your customer service skills..... Dachau?

I am sorry for that last comment, it was most ungracious and unreasonable.

He replied, I am sorry sir...COMPANY POLICY.

I hung up and fixed myself a beer and a plate of chocolate not knowing whether inebriation or a sugar high would be preferable.  So I did both.

After I simmered awhile and took a short catnap, I called again to the now achingly familiar Customer Service Center to say I felt it unreasonable I should go without phones for two weeks since we have no land line.

Lo and behold Brenda Britt of the Longview, TX service center agreed with me! (Don't you agree there is just something about those Texas women. )

She looked into the matter and discovered dear Bonnie Capman had simply failed to get supervisor approval for the exchange. Within about thirty minutes of holding, my upgrade had been cancelled and received supervisor approval and I could go into any store and upgrade my service to a Luddite phone at the "upgrade price" ! WOW! Thanks Brenda!

So I called the AT&T store in Rogers. Perhaps, under the circumstances,  a bit of whimsy on my part...or possibly a grim fascination with Dante. Seven redials later ("We are sorry we are very busy helping other customers"),  in frustration I called my wife in the Home Office of Wal-Mart to cry and moan a little. She said I'll call Doreen!

Four minutes later I received a call from Doreen. "Your wife called from the Wal-Mart Home office and asked me to call you."  The words "Wal-Mart Home Office" has apparently mystical properties rivaling the Minotaur or Sphinx in inscrutability.

"Doreen, my sweet, will you check to see if the records are cleared so I can get the new phones you showed me earlier today?"

Of course.......no not yet I have spoken with my supervisor and COMPANY POLICY......

I sank into a fit of despair rivaling Van Gogh before the ear cutting. "Why great God in heaven have you abandoned me to this cruel fate?"

Redial Brenda...unbelievable trouble to find the same person in the same call center.

"Yes it has been changed Mr. Middleton as I told you.  The store person didn't check closely enough. We have completely cancelled your upgrade and you are free to go in any store and upgrade to the phone of your choice at upgrade prices."

Once again Brenda, you have exceeded all expectations and marched directly into the halls of Valhalla trailing a scent of..........well, never mind.

Redial my AT&T corporate store....five, six, no seven times. "Hello Doreen my lurking little cherub would you mind checking the records one more time?"

"Of course Mr. Middleton. Oh, here it is! they've cancelled the upgrade! You are free to come in and pick out any phone at upgrade prices."

Terrific, Doreen, my dappled little pudding, how much is the upgrade price for a Pantech Breeze II"

"119.99"

"But that was the retail price without the upgrade,  right?"

"Right they are the same."

You mean I spent all day.........no, no. Surely you jest, mon petit!"

"No sir, there is no discount whether upgrade or not."

"So my Motorola Atrix 4G, which cost $99.95 new or $49.95 refurbished, and texts, goes online, has wifi, internet and bluetooth whatchamacallit, has 34 different ringtones and operates by voice command and has been blessed by the Pope and the internet gurus as "the best damn smart phone out there",with, if I am not mistaken an app that will raise the Confederate flag while whistling "Dixie", is cheaper than this little Pantech Breeze II which is just for making calls? It's $119.99?

"Less rebate which comes to you in the form of a credit card.  And the data plan and text plan...."

"I'm talking about the cost OF THE PHONE, Doreen." I checked with my Non-corporate store here and it is $99.95 less rebate according to Robb Hall who is rarely wrong

"Yes sir.  It is more.  I don't know why."

I don't know why either.  It is now 7:45 at night and I am finished with phones today.  I am going to pull out my SIM card, return my neighbor's phone and if I have a heart attack tonight and cannot raise the ambulance I will come back from the dead, move next door to you at 207 S. Akard St. in Dallas and appear throughout the AT&T corporate offices as a dreadful apparition, hovering over cubicles, rattling chains and moaning viscerally throughout the day.

Since I got what I wanted I have few complaints..........I guess. We will see what happens tomorrow.

I may call customer service again just to have a moment of humor.

Very truly yours,  

John P. Middleton, the phoneless