jeremyrsolomon

My Evolving Thoughts on the Zelensky Meeting

by

My Evolving Thoughts on the Zelensky Meeting

The White House press conference that shook the world was three weeks ago, and I’ve had a turbulent journey of thoughts on it since. I’ve held disgust for the leaders of my country, but later came to understand at least some of their views. What follows is a chronicle of this journey, from analysis of the meeting itself, and the situation with Ukraine in general. With an acknowledgement of my limited perspective, and hoping for malice toward none, I’ll share the waves of opinions I’ve had on what was suppose to be a simple photo-op between presidents.

While I would hope for grace from any reader, I hope in particular that fans of Donald Trump will bear with me. The first paragraphs show the raw emotion I felt from first watching the press conference. The anger would have made for a scathing online post, likely to change the minds of no one, nor giving me peace on the matter. This isn’t to say I’ve done a 180 turn on my views, but the following days presented to me the best (and worst) of arguments from conservatives. From this, I’ve refined my opinions while in the end just hoping that our leaders will work things out for the world.

Friday, the Day of the Press Conference, around 3:00PM:

I saw the ten-minute clip of President Trump and Vice President Vance attacking President Zelensky, and I was in a bad mood the rest of the day. I just watched my country’s leaders berate a persecuted president who’s faced three years of invasion and war crimes from Russia. In particular, I was infuriated by Trump’s criticism of Zelensky for having great hatred for President Putin. As if there was no good reason for it. As if Ukraine had equal responsibility for the war. As if the murder and sadistic treatment of the his people shouldn’t fill Zelensky with rage. At best, the moment was a horrid lack of empathy for a suffering people, and at worst, it renewed suspicions that Trump is pro-Putin, and always has been. With all of this spinning in my mind, I drove home for the weekend with contempt for the leadership of the United States.

Keeping up with the story the next day, I listened to conservative media mock Zelensky. Some arguments were ad hominem. “He should have worn a suit!”* “He should go back to doing bad TV!” (As if the same thing couldn’t be said of the U.S. President.). But most of all, they said Zelensky was stupid and despicable for having a lack of gratitude for America. Vance, seeming to want a seat at the big-boy table of global politics, interjected himself in the meeting with the accusation, and his political base was following suit. The complete lack of respect and appreciation for Zelensky and his accomplishments was revolting to me. In short, conservatives came off as a—holes, deepening my bad mood and making my family dinner less enjoyable.**

By Sunday afternoon, I had read social media posts from people making similar pro-Trump arguments, and I tried to restrain myself from judgements. They’re not bad people, I told myself. Opinions don’t speak to who we are. They’re not pro-Russia. They want what’s best for others… even if they’re being inconsiderate of Ukraine. Political events bring us to spit out our inner monologues online, and it wasn’t fun to read certain posts on the event.*** Still, I tried to resolve to not hate people I’ve known in life to be decent. I don’t want to hate them, just as I didn’t want to hate anti-vaccine people through Covid, despite the media’s encouragement to do so. With this, I breathed in, breathed out, and I felt a little better to start the week.

The Following Week of Conservative Views:

I now listened to the Trump administration by watching a CNN interview with Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State. He explained the need to not agitate Russia – to not deter them from coming to negotiations. According to him, no matter what our feelings of Russia, it was important to restrain our criticisms, only for Zelensky to have publicly pushed the U.S. to condemn them. Trump himself made a similar point at the press conference – that if he says bad things about Putin, then where will that get us in stopping the war? As much as we want to condemn Russia, showing the (valid) righteousness of our side on all things Ukraine, maybe it’s reasonable for our government to not do this. It’s frustrating, but it made some sense.

Rubio also noted that the unsigned mineral deal would in itself have become a security guarantee for Ukraine, which is what Zelensky insisted on throughout the meeting (More on this later.). A similar thought had already crossed my mind: The fact that if the U.S. has an economic investment in Ukraine, then their concerns become our concerns. Therefore, Russia would face a significant deterrent in attacking again, and the world might enjoy a stable peace. I guess that makes sense, I thought. Still, I had heard Trump praise dictators too many times in the past to take a lot of comfort from the Secretary of State. By the end of the interview though, I wished Rubio the best of luck. For all of our sakes, and no matter who his boss might be.

Later, I listened to someone else in the administration talk about the risk of the U.S. publicly siding with Ukraine (I can’t remember who he was. Some older guy in a suit.). If the U.S. announced, “We now guarantee the sovereignty of Ukraine”, then the U.S. would seem to be promising all resources to fulfill that pledge. If Russia is fighting Ukraine in that moment, including in territory Ukraine has come to occupy, then couldn’t Russia consider it an act of war? When Trump attacked Zelensky at the conference for risking World War III, the argument now doesn’t seem so absurd, and Trump’s aggression seems a little more understandable. Take away every shady thing we think we know about Donald Trump, and maybe we can just see a guy who wants to stop a catastrophic world event. It’s a little harder for me now to condemn him, no matter what his manners or levels of empathy.

At some point later in the week, I listened to Ben Shapiro dissect the press conference, with an emphasis on the first 40 minutes. These were the minutes I hadn’t listened to yet. The minutes that many in media ignored since they didn’t have the fireworks of the later ten- minute exchange. Zelensky several times insisted on the need for security guarantees. Shapiro, while saying it’s a reasonable concern for Ukraine, describes Zelensky as adversarial with this throughout. While I wouldn’t put it so harshly, I can see how the public insistence could be counter-productive to negotiations. It’s reasonable for Ukraine to want guarantees, with the ambitions of Putin and years of Russian aggression. But presidents would normally demand such things behind closed doors, and after 40 minutes of public insistence in broken English, Trump felt the need to push back. Again, the behaviors of the U.S. president now felt a little more reasonable.

With all of this, I tried to have some respect for the aims of the Trump administration, and my possible short-sightedness on how to stop global wars. I still think their inconsiderations of Ukraine were repulsive, but I will hope for their success in solving it all. After the meeting, Trump was emphatic that he wants peace, and it seems odd to argue against that.

My Personal Opinions on the Whole Thing, Three Weeks Later:

A few final thoughts:

1. I still get angry when hearing complaints of the U.S. spending billions to help Ukraine. With a war-torn nation facing constant bombings and atrocities by foreign armies, it’s hard to care much about the billions we’ve spent to help Ukraine (I’m not sure where President Trump gets the $350 billion number, but the amount from news coverage makes it appear around $120.). The U.S. has defended a democracy while helping to bleed the resources of a dictatorial nation for three years. These things are a reward in itself for America, just as it had been through decades of the Cold War. With the U.S. having $37 trillion of rising national debt, our support for Ukraine isn’t breaking the bank. We’ll be fine. Ukraine is not.

2. On the mineral treaty left unsigned by Zelensky, I have mixed feelings. America strikes me as a mafia leader in the deal, extorting Ukraine for wealth in exchange for protection. I have scenes from Goodfellas in mind as I imagine our extractions of minerals from a nation that will need all the resources it can get to rebuild. On the other hand, as someone who is a fiscal hawk who laments of America’s massive debts, it’s appealing to have a means of recovering the money. While the amount spent isn’t $37 trillion, it’s not nothing either. Also, as noted, the agreement would give the U.S. an economic interest in Ukraine, making an informal guarantee by the U.S. to protect them. It’s hard for me to hate the idea, though it’s also hard to love it.

3. Was Zelensky at fault for the fiasco of the press conference? I’ll resolve now that three things could be true at once: 

     a. Ukraine is on the right side of history.

     b. Trump and Vance were inconsiderate jerks to Zelensky.

     c. Zelensky was misguided.

If Zelensky’s goal was to shore up financial support from Europe by making America appear unreliable, then he succeeded as he later toured the E.U. to raise more billions. But if he wanted to show a righteous aggression for his cause, then it wasn’t necessary to do it at an event that was nothing more than a forgettable photo-op. He could have known that Trump and Vance were not the friendliest allies, and would bite back if pushed. While I’m not a foreign policy expert, maybe Zelensky’s persistence was an unforced error.

—

I’ve avoided news the past couple weeks, as I do when markets crash, raising worries on things I can’t control. But I’ve seen headlines on the U.S. and Ukraine discussing a ceasefire with Russia. “The ball is in their court,” Marco Rubio said, and so it sounds like Zelensky and Trump made some level of peace after the conference. So maybe the spectacle, as dramatic as it appeared, will become inconsequential. Or maybe the argument will affect foreign affairs for years to come. Who knows for sure. But in the end, most of us can do nothing about it but hope the world doesn’t spin further in chaos. Maybe peace will be created, whether by the imperfect leaders of the world, or God’s good grace.

 

 

*I can understand how some might not accept this as an ad hominem argument. One can say that if Zelensky truly respected his relationship to America, then he would accept the customs of formal dress and throw on a coat and tie. Still, the topic of his attire was outside the events of his country, and it seemed like those who would mock Zelensky were just looking to throw anything they could at him. So it’s hard for me to take it as a relevant point to the conversation.

**Though who am I kidding? The meal was Chick-Fil-A, and it was great as always.

***This is another reminder to me that while I might pay attention to social media, I wish social media didn’t exist. And it’s interesting that many from Gen Z would back me up on this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/17/opinion/social-media-smartphones-harm-regret.html

“Diabolical Lies”? Let’s Just Let Women Choose their Lives without Judgment

by

“Diabolical Lies”? Let’s Just Let Women Choose their Lives without Judgement

Harrison Butker, NFL kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs, drew public condemnation for a commencement speech earlier this year. He shared conservative thoughts to a Catholic college – from pro-life views to “fiasco” Covid policies – but attention came to his praise of homemakers. “Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are the most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.” He also referred to women’s desires for job success over motherhood as “diabolical lies”, receiving a standing ovation from the crowd, but judgements from elsewhere.

Outrage at Butker stretched for months, and while I thought people misrepresented his words, I couldn’t get past the phrase “diabolical lies”. On one hand, I don’t take Butkler to mean that women should live the now-cliche image of red robes and white bonnets from “The Handsmaid’s Tale”. Rather, his point was that being a homemaker has its own rewards, and we shouldn’t discourage the natural excitement women may have for that future. At the same time, Butker didn’t give due credit to the positives of encouraging women to use their talents in the wider world. While he wanted to promote motherhood as admirable, women should be able to choose their own adventures in life with the same level of support.

By describing our support for women’s careers as devilish lies, Butker diminished the contributions of women who “may go on to lead successful careers in the world.” While they may not reach the greatest heights in their fields, the skills and labor of those graduates will benefit the economic and personal well-being of people in their spheres. From the creation of jobs to organization in their work environment, there are depths to what the women will contribute to society through their careers. Like George Bailey seeing the full impact of his life in It’s a Wonderful Life, the women Butker spoke to will have an impact on the professional world around them. I suspect Butker might agree with this in a more in-depth conversation, but in any case, his speech could have given more respect to their future careers.*

As an inspiring example of such a career, Doris Kearns Goodwin embodies the rewards of a culture that promotes career pursuits for women.** Goodwin may be the most well-known historian of our time, with several decades of research, writing and teaching inspiring us with tales of U.S. presidents. With her abundant skills in mind, let’s now imagine there was no movement of women’s liberation in the mid-20th century. Would our society have encouraged her to pursue her career? More likely, her influence would have been confined to her family, and while we shouldn’t look down on this path, there are other pursuits we can promote to our daughters. Let them choose what is right for them, and hope for the best in any case.

I’ve reflected on all of this as I’ve been working on a writing project with a fictional character – a young woman who will come to recognize her abilities as an executive. Taking place in 19-century Virginia, this carpetbagger will find new confidence in herself, directing others to achieve goals in educating former slaves. But her journey will be ripe with discouragement as family and others will speak of a more “proper” place for her in life. Should she abandon her new profession to be a homemaker and farmhand in life, as her father would have of her? How much have the talents of women been suppressed through centuries by limiting women in this way? The answer is incalculable, and we should encourage whatever paths someone will take.

Back to Doris Kearns Goodwin, the all-the-more amazing part to me is that she found the grit to choose both career and motherhood. In her latest book, she describes her days of research and writing while paying attention to her children through the day.*** How did she find the time and energy to have focus on these things? It seems incredible that some will have the burden of handling children while meeting the demands of a career, but women like Goodwin somehow do it. So the graduates like those who listened to Harrison Butker should also keep this in mind. It’s a daunting challenge, but still attainable.

From a personal example, I know the value and happiness that my wife takes from photography. It was in her blood since childhood, and she’s had the opportunity to share the craft with students and viewers for years now. She’s inspired others to pursue the trade, and she has been part of the art communities at universities as well. With this, should we describe past encouragements for her career as “diabolical lies”? Was her range of influence in the world best to be isolated to her children and unworthy husband? It’s hard to think this when hearing from a former student of hers, now also a photographer who enjoys the trade while having children of her own. We can be thankful for a society that didn’t demean her professional ambition while also believing she can find joy from motherhood.

So let us encourage all paths that each woman will choose for themselves. From Harrison Butker, let’s keep in mind that women can have great fulfillment from becoming mothers. In itself, the role will be satisfying and productive as their children make their way in the world with virtue. At the same time, let’s not diminish the careers that will call to them. The professions that will harness their skills to make for a better world. Women should choose one, or the other, or both, without any thought of judgement from conversations or liberals. Whatever their paths, we’ll be better off for them.

 
*When writing of “diabolical lies”, I suspect Butker also had the 1960s sexual revolution in mind – the message to women that promiscuity will lead to equality and self-satisfaction. Here, I would be more sympathetic with the NFL kicker, but it’s a discussion for another time. 
**Without Goodwin, we wouldn’t have the well-renown Lincoln biography “Team of Rivals”, and by extension, we wouldn’t have the movie Lincoln. For this alone, we should be grateful that our society didn’t push Goodwin away from her ambitions as a historian. The world is better off for having Steven Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis bring Abraham Lincoln to such popular attention.
***It was a joy to read this latest book, “An Unfinished Love Story: A Personal History of the 1960s”. With 7,970 ratings on the Goodreads app, the book has 4.67 out of 5 stars. When finishing it, I felt I had no choice but to give it five stars as well.

Failures – To Get Away from it All

by

Failures – To Get Away From It All

Cam Newton’s career as an NFL quarterback came to a tragic peak in the 2016 Super Bowl. His offense played poorly against one of the best defenses of the century, but the Carolina Panthers still had the ball late with a chance to win. On a third and nine, Newton fumbled the ball, and as it skipped on the turf, Newton had a chance to dive for it. But a defensive player was closer on the ground, and Newton backed away.* The Denver Broncos recovered the ball, scored another touchdown, and the Panthers would have the biggest loss in the history of the team.

For sports media, the even greater crime by Newton was after the game. Newton started to answer their questions, but he abruptly left the scene and wasn’t to be seen again that night. Pundits pounced on him in the coming days, not only his hesitancy on the fumble, but poor sportsmanship by leaving the press. He’s the quarterback. The leader. He should set an example. And so on. Talking heads on ESPN condemned Newton with shouts of indignation. The media gave the public a villain in Super Bowl 50, his post-game exit was almost as big a headline as the game itself.

Rolling my eyes at the righteousness of the journalists, it was hard to not to feel sorry for Newton. He’d just had the worst moment of his career, if not his entire life. Hundreds of millions had watched his mistake on the field, and the publicity of the scene made the embarrassment hard to compare. To me, if anyone from such a moment feels the need to find a hole to hide in, they have my support. Go ahead and rest. Clear your head. Find your family, and take a night to breathe and process what just happened. Then come to us the next day a little refreshed with a better frame of mind. The media will have plenty to talk about in the first 24 hours, without needing your point of view. Any of us would hope for a measure of grace in the situation.

Super Bowl 50 was eight years ago, but this has always stuck in my mind as I can see myself avoiding the media as Newton did. I’m a sore loser, and I’ll wear emotions on my sleeve as embarrassment dominates my thoughts. The anger comes not so much from losing itself, but the times when I feel like I humiliated myself. Maybe my score was dead last, or maybe there was some obvious move that I missed. The failure feels like a reflection of myself, whether from a lack of skill or intelligence. Self-criticism will swell in me, and so it’s easy to relate to what Newton may have felt. His shortcoming came in view of the entire world, and it seems right to me that he should have had the chance to get away from it.

Maybe the most memorable example of an athlete defying the mandates of press conferences is Marshawn Lynch. Running back for the Seattle Seahawks, Lynch had no interest in talking with reporters. He would defy the rules, and even when complying, he would wear his helmet with a black eye shield down to cover his face. The NFL gave him hefty fines, declaring his shyness unacceptable. Good grief, just leave him alone, I would think as ESPN reported the fines. After retirement, Lynch would make a host of appearances in commercials and other media, almost as a dig on the NFL. I’ll be in the news when I want to be. Seeing him any time on screen was a treat. Like Newton, I would hope Lynch has the chance to do as he pleases in relations with media.

All of this isn’t to say that reporters were wrong about Newton’s shortcoming in the game. His hesitation to go for the ball would go down as one of the more frustrating moments in NFL history. An assumption in any sport is that athletes will do anything possible to keep their chances of winning for the team alive. For Newton to back away from the ball with no effort to recover was inexcusable. The defensive player may have had the advantage, and even if Newton recovered, the Panthers’ odds of winning the game were slim. Still, surrendering the ball handed the win to the Broncos. For any professional athlete, driven through years of pee-wee leagues, college and pros, to not go for the ball was as surprising as it was heartbreaking. The wide world of sports had good reason to feel disappointed in Newton.

Also, in fairness to the Carolina Panthers, it’s understandable they or any team would want their players to be available to media. For the purposes of team promotion and appeasing customers, a sports business should want their stars to be on camera. How much more for a team that just played in America’s biggest event. For Newton, he was an NFL quarterback. A natural leader, not only for his team, but for a billion-dollar company with millions of customers who were disappointed with their performance. The Super Bowl is the biggest of such moments, with the economic prosperity of employees and third-party business riding on the athletes. It’s a daunting responsibility, but it’s one that athletes take on when suiting up and signing contracts.

For Newton, being the leader in the spotlight would diminish rapidly. He was never the same after the Super Bowl, with his performance declining in the few years left of his career. It may have been a coincidence that his descent followed the Super Bowl. Maybe his teams just happened to be worse, or his health declined as he became older. Still, the fumble seemed so cataclysmic, it’s hard not to wonder if there was a connection to his downward trajectory. Either way, it’s a shame for him. Newton portrayed himself on the field as Superman, pretending to tear off a Clark Kent suit when scoring a touchdown. He was boasting, but it was a fitting comparison. His talent willed his teams to success, and so to come so close to the mountain top, feels like a tragedy that would hurt any of us.

With such a descent from Super Bowl 50, I’ll always have an empathy for Cam Newton. Even if he missed the mark of good sportsmanship, sore losers like me can relate to him. To brush off mistakes and move on with confidence, is a virtue I never learned. So even if I’m in the wrong, people will still have my blessing to find a place to hide from the world. No matter how justified it will be to critique their performance or demeanor, my gut will tell me to let them get away from it all. We’ll hear back from them soon enough, refreshed and ready to move forward.

 

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytwAalH7vec

Political Memes and Me

by

Political Memes and Me

It’s hard for me to appreciate political memes. Some say they’re a good way to start conversations, but they seem more like a pretentious way of affirming your own opinions. Those who share the meme think they’ve proven their brilliance, implying the message gives them the final word on the subject. The one who posts it feels pride, seeing themselves as sticking it to the idiots who disagree, walking away from social media with victory. In truth, there’s little to be impressed with. Someone came across a meme while scrolling online, confirmed the bias they already had, and then clicked Share. That’s all that happened. There was no research, nor any deep reflection on the topic. Just a feeling of righteousness as the sharer claims to drop a proverbial mic on the subject.

While these are cynical thoughts, this meme gave me a mixed bag of feelings: 

The post complains of the media’s lack of coverage on public school lunch debt in Missouri. This often-used image for memes is of a man gawking at an attractive woman while the girlfriend looks at him with disgust. In this case, the man represents “American Media”. The hot girl is “Inspirational Story”, and the girlfriend is “Huge Systemic Failure”. The argument is that American media doesn’t highlight societal problems, instead becoming distracted by individual acts of triumph. While it’s admirable to bring attention to such an obscure issue, the problems with the meme are hard to ignore.*

To their credit, the meme’s creator recognizes an unknown plight for families, and it’s a worthy topic to bring attention to. There are a hundred ways America is becoming more expensive as parents increase their debt from the simple need of not having their kids feel hungry in school. As a Minnesotan, it has been encouraging to see Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz spearhead a national conversation on the topic. Minnesota has addressed the problem with a universal lunch program, and maybe the dialogue will lead other states to address it. With this, the suggestion that the media should report on it seems reasonable, for greater awareness and potential solutions.

At the same time, the meme’s critique of the media doesn’t jive with reality. Is it implying that American journalism doesn’t cover our problems? As an avid reader of current events, this appears absurd as the news gives us daily evidence to the contrary. The term “doom-scrolling” was coined for good reason. Constant news of injustice and heartache fill the pages of our media, showcasing the plethora of ways institutions have failed us.** Contrary to what the meme claims, the metaphorical boyfriend pays lots of attention to the girlfriend. She should feel confident in his unwavering devotion for her.

This isn’t to say that the media should stop showing us the warts of societies. Journalists should highlight them, and even if cynics like me roll my eyes at their apocalyptic tones, the public should know what’s going wrong. Still, I’d ask again: Who claims that the media doesn’t highlight these things? We are inundated with stories of crime, war, sex abuse, student debt, day care costs, climate change, housing shortages, poverty, etc, etc. So even if the media had yet to cover the specific issue of school lunch debt in Missouri, can we say with a straight face that journalists have failed us? It seems to be a silly suggestion.

Leaving that aside, the central claim of the meme is that journalists become distracted by singular stories of inspiration, bringing our gaze away from the problems. If this were true of media on a massive scale, then it might be a practice worth addressing. But two points come to mind:

1.    Media outlets have enough resources and common sense to pursue both the inspirational and public failures. It’s hard to reduce an entire organization of journalists and their resources to one boyfriend gawking at a stranger. The media can walk and chew gum at the same time, highlighting the mountains of suffering in the world while sharing some of the heartwarming tales.

2.    Couldn’t it be said that inspirational stories, like the kid raising money for student lunch debts, help to reveal the problems at hand? News is getting out that something bad has been happening to families in Missouri. In this case, the student’s fundraising caused both media fawning and the creation of the meme. Reporting on the good can still bring our attention toward the problem, showing us that news doesn’t have to exclusively showcase doom and gloom.

Even beyond this, we haven’t yet considered the positives of the media sharing inspirational stories. Just as we need to know the problems we face, we need to aspire to stories of charity and triumph. The successes of a government program. The offerings of communities. The stories of survival. The acts of forgiveness and philanthropy that will make the world better. Such reporting gives the public courage and inspiration to believe in what is possible. Telling us about the healing of a cancer patient doesn’t stop us from knowing about cancer, and we shouldn’t discourage the media from covering the story of the patient. Journalists should also be messengers of good tidings, along with all of the bad.

Funny enough, thinking about this meme has raised my general confidence in the media. As much as we complain about the biases and half-truths of their coverage, journalists will report on most of the things we should know. When subscribing to The New York Times in 2022, the first thing I read was a series of stories on the war starting in Ukraine. The level of detail they shared was remarkable, from political motivations to problems with military equipment. It was clear how much work and dedication the newspaper went through to pull the information together, to inform people like me. Sure, biases spring up in stories, and mistakes can always be made, but it’s hard to believe the media has a widespread practice of showing fluff stories over the ugly.

With all of this reflection on media, it’s amazing now to remember that it all came to me from a simple meme. Maybe I should cut memes some slack – to give them a chance to add to our conversations. Maybe memes are like people: Even if their views are nonsense, we can still learn something if we pay attention. The motivations of someone who shares the meme can be suspect, with trolling and arrogance always possible. And yet, the meme on student lunch debt gave me an awareness of the issue, and the chance to refine my thoughts on modern journalism. That’s not a bad job for an over-used image with a few short captions. Maybe, indeed, there was a point to be made.

*By acknowledging our ignorance of school lunch debts, you can now argue that memes serve as a positive force for awareness. Cynical Jeremy will have to get back to you for a comeback.

 

**For a source that personifies this practice, watch the HBO show This Week Tonight with John Oliver. It will make you think nothing is going right in the world. It’s a good thing John Oliver is funny, for how depressing the show would be otherwise.

 

Mourning – The Better Approach

by

Glenn Loury, in his memoir Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative, describes a crisis of faith from a church that failed him in his grief. He’d suffered the sudden death of a beloved co-worker, and the message he received from the funeral was that his loss shouldn’t be met with sorrow, but celebration instead. The deceased was going to Heaven, and so no one should feel bad about her dying. The congregates expressed a joyfulness, and Glenn took offense. He had just lost a friend, and the world had lost a saint all too soon. It was off-putting for his brethren to give no regard to his pain. No empathy for his heartache. The church ignored his anguish, and their god wasn’t one he wanted to follow.

In fairness, there’s room to be cynical of Glenn blaming others for his loss of faith. In his book, Glenn highlights the irresponsible practices that kept a foothold through his life – e.g., adultery, drug use, and night life away from family. Glenn suggests they were the true reasons he stopped believing. His “cover story” was the lack of church empathy for his loss, but the “real story” was him wanting to be “master of the universe” in his life. Submission to a higher power would call him out on the ways he hurt himself and others, but the message of the church was an excuse to keep doing as he pleased. It’s not hard to imagine many of us having such cover stories, to hide the reasons for our selfishness in the world.

Still, despite his faults, Glenn wasn’t wrong to be critical of the church’s message about death. When mourners cry in agony, we see a common denominator in the human experience, and those who claim to be a guide in life shouldn’t disregard it. While Glenn should have done better in his life, the church should have done better for him. At best, they were ignorant of the feelings Glenn and others carried with them. At worst, the church was passing judgment on their grief, implying it was an error. Either way, the sorrow went without recognition, and the congregants should have done better.

Reading of Glenn’s recollections reminded me of a recent encounter with friends who faced a similar situation. The family grieved for a cherished uncle, and the message they received was the same. We should be happy he’s in Heaven. He’s away from this world. At peace with our Savior. Why should people feel bad? It’s a time to rejoice! Explaining how the audience ought to feel about his death, the faithful were telling my agnostic friends that their sadness was wrong. Misguided. A distraction from God’s will. The church may have had good intentions by sharing an encouragement, but my friends left the service with alienation instead. There was no sense of anyone relating to their loss. No sympathy for the hole that was now in their lives. It was sad to think of a church leaving my friends more secular than when they walked in.

While there’s a logic to sharing the message, it’s disturbing to see a lack of empathy for mourning. On one hand, it feels hard to criticize a church for wanting to share hope. The word “gospel” literally means good news, and so it makes sense that a church would want to give encouragement in the worst of circumstances. Still, such messages can fail to meet the genuine needs of many in the pews. The message forgets the need to recognize the anguish from death. We are less without the person lost, and the dead can no longer have the joys of life. Mourning doesn’t come from a lack of character or personal beliefs, but default from the loss of life. It’s not wrong to feel this way, but we can imply it in the saddest moments of our lives.

There is a story from the Bible that legitimizes our feelings of mourning. To understand the character of God and the best response to mourning, one verse may be used to meditate on the subject:

“Jesus wept.”*

It’s the shortest English verse of the Bible, but powerful in its implications. More than a verse, it was an action carried out by Jesus. The creator of the universe mourned with Mary and Martha for the death of their brother Lazarus. Jesus felt the same sorrow. The same heartache. The same depth of feeling the sisters were holding with each other. Such an image counters the notion of a distant God who doesn’t care for our affairs. God was with the sisters, not with a message of joy but as one who cared enough to join them in their pain. This is a god to have hope in. The god Glenn Loury needed to hear about. The god that my friends could have found in their bereavement, but didn’t.

If Jesus’s actions aren’t enough to show us the need to mourn with others, there is more evidence still. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.”** Having described the awesome majesty of God, Paul spends a chapter of time giving the churches of Rome instructions on how to live life in response. Among them, he told them to meet people in their grief. To be with them where they are in their emotions. To not have ignorance of their feelings or judgement against them, but to commit love by aligning ourselves with them. If we do this, we fulfill the God-given duty to love one another in life.***

When taking all of this in, we should appreciate both halves of the verse. To rejoice with others means there are times to celebrate with someone – to have genuine happiness for their fortunes. Without jealousy or discouragement, we give others the chance to share news of what has been good to them, bringing greater joy to their world. At the same time, we are to weep with those who weep. In this, we give a measure of peace and comfort, legitimizing their grief and demonstrating that the person isn’t alone. It is a noble task to sit with someone in their pain. No words needed. Just an effort to relate to them.

With these lessons, we can offer hope by meeting others in their sorrow. An acknowledgement of their pain can be as valuable as any other healing in life. If Glenn Loury had received this gift, then maybe the encouragement would have made his faith more active in future years. If my neighbors had heard this message, then maybe their skepticism for church would have diminished. It’s a powerful suggestion – to meet people where they are. May we all become better examples of this practice.

* John 11:35

** Romans 12:15

*** John 13:34, 1 John 3:11