To Be Kinda Convinced Is Not Enough, but Be Careful

 No one who is paying attention at all can doubt that we citizens of the United States live in a very polarized time.

It's not the greatest TV ever produced, but an old Outer Limits episode, "Hearts and Minds,"  makes a 
point that we would do well to think about. Our current political situation got me thinking about the old TV show.  (You can find the episode on Youtube or find a summary here.)

The Outer Limits episode is a negative utopia piece. The world is locked in a war over fuel for energy, and the soldiers who make up the characters in the video are hard-core, totally committed to their "us or them" battle. It is a war for the survival of humanity. Not only is the video black and white, the cause for which they are fighting is absolute. The women and men who make up the small squad of soldiers are very human. The enemy is a horrid insectoid race of aliens, carrying a deadly-to-humans infection. The soldiers are equipped with an injection system, not unlike the insulin pumps that make life for many diabetics much easier. Only in the futurist dark fantasy, the medication that is injected into the soldiers' bloodstream is an agent that supposedly protects them from this alien infection.

The tragic twist that is revealed toward the end of the episode is that in reality the "juice" is part of a system that makes the soldiers see their enemies--in reality as human as they--as "bugs."

As I say, it is not the best TV programming ever produced, but underneath the heavy-handed, manipulative drama is a very real human tendency that is often exploited by demagogues of various stripes. One of the soldiers expresses it as he confronts a fellow fighter. "You have to hate them." One does not go to war over a trivial disagreement over a minor offense. Over the years I have resisted, and sometimes been captured by this tendency to make ones opponent an enemy, and to go on and make ones enemy something other than human. I succumbed to the "juice."

Someone once said something like (how's that for precision?), "Madison Avenue (the advertisement industry) is in the business of creating desires for things that didn't even exist a short time ago." It doesn't take too deep a dive into our consumerist culture to see dangers with that, but much more problematic is turning that syndrome on its head, and creating hatreds for causes, movements, and groups of people.

Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler if his rhetoric had been, "It seems to me, as I examine the economic trends of post-war Germany that the Jewish community may have reaped a disproportionate amount of profit when compared to other sectors." No, the Feurer was a master of what has come to be known as "othering." In our real-world scenario the "juice" is not injected by an implanted pump, but by rhetoric, alignment with movements, and well-crafted media. On the other hand, I have to admit that Churchill's rhetoric, often strident, led to what I regard as a good outcome. Balance and caution are needed.

I'm struck by the contrast that I see in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. (I'll leave the discussion of the imprecatory Psalms for another time.) Never was there a greater contrast than what took place in the passion of Christ--the absolutely righteous human surrounded by a mob that cried out for His crucifixion. Having accomplished their bloody mission, the totally innocent victim of this supreme othering calls out, while suffering the agonies of death on the cross, "Father, forgive them."

I am not discounting the great importance of the causes that are before us, things like:

• The sacrifice of innocent children to the total autonomy of the individuals who make the tragic choice to kill these little people.
• The denial of the biological reality of maleness and femaleness, and the demand for total acceptance of, even support for, the futile notion that one can choose ones gender with absolute freedom.
• The deep-seated disagreement over the nature of reality itself--"Is this a world of stuff and stuff alone, or is there a spiritual reality all around it, that is, indeed, more permanent than the stuff w walk of, breathe, eat, and with which we clothe ourselves?"

Yes, there are clearly issues that are worth contending for, fighting for, even dying for, but if the fight is to be "the good fight," it must be undertaken on the basis of truth. The truth is that even those who hold to polar opposite views than mine, are, like me, human beings. They are, even though many deny it, the special creation of God. Just like me, they owe their existence to dirt, water, and air--the providential work of God Who causes "all things to hold together." As much as I may want to hate them and as often and loudly as some of my co-belligerents encourage me to hate them, I can't. It is not that I'm not able, I am very capable of that hatred. It is that must not. I am a follower of the one who asked for the forgiveness of His tormentors. 

Let me finish with a few suggestions that flow from this thought:

• We have to be careful about hyperbole. Is this really the "most important election in our history," or, "the defining cause of our generation, or "a battle for the life of our nation/way of life/freedom/etc."? Perhaps, but be careful.
• Is there anything right about the position of the person who holds another view? Is the abortion advocate right about the plight of some women? Does gender confusion cause real heartache for many, particularly young, people? Have some elements of our society been wrongly treated for a long time? I'm not saying that the answers to those questions erase the real issues, but rather that asking and seeking honest answers to those questions remind me that on the other side of the debate stage stands another human, not an "other."
• The changing of hearts and minds is a much more long-lasting solution than the wielding of power.

Be careful of the "juice."

 

Donuts, Chicken, and Our Polarized Culture

 You may have heard of the controversy about Chick-Fil-A's DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusiveness) policy. It seems to me that some conservative Christians have been too quick on the trigger in reacting to something that they think should generate outrage. Here is an article from a blogger that I like. Dennison, as he often does, says in essence, "Let's cool our jets."

I had a personal experience that reminds me of the chicken-sandwich-kerfluffle. One of my grandpa things is to do a donut run whenever I'm visiting with my grandkids. Most of my grandchildren are grownup, and the one who isn't thinks she is. Still, they seem to enjoy Grandpa going out before breakfast and bringing home some pastry. I know for sure that Grandpa enjoys it a lot.

On my last donut run, I went to a local donut shop that I've come to like. Most of the business there is drive-through, but an enjoyable part of the experience for me is going in, smelling the smell of fresh donuts, and, perhaps, interacting with another early-morning pastry fetcher. On this trip I had a pleasant 30-second encounter with a youngish guy who properly "sir"ed me, as his elder. He held the door for me and I for him, as he exited with sweet treats and coffee. Across generational and racial pseudo-boundaries we agreed on the good early morning aroma. 

I was waited on by a very nice young lady. She got my order right, pleasantly helped me get the right mix in my box of a dozen, and handled the credit card transaction flawlessly. She put a wad of napkins in the box and thanked me with a smile. We found no hair stuck to any of the pastries. If I were a donut shop operator I'd want an employee just like this young lady.

Thus far, I've only described the donut server based on the things that really matter. Everything else about this woman was totally "un-me." It was almost like she was wearing a t-shirt that said, "Please be offended at me." Her outfit included a spiked collar suspending a pair of handcuffs. Her hair was turquoise blue. Her tattoos included facial markings that clearly had a feline look. There is more. In another context, if I knew this woman well enough to engage her in conversation, I'd probably inquire about her appearance and what lay beneath it. Everything about her looked like she is looking for love/acceptance/meaning/satisfaction in all the wrong places. There was a bit of an ache in my heart for her and others like her.

The fact is, though, my 90-second encounter with the donut server was about donuts. She handled that transaction flawlessly.

• Do I want this woman--probably a college student with initiative enough to get up early and go to work--to have a job, or do I want her to be a burden to her neighbors?
• Beneath all of what I regard as her utterly outlandish get-up is this woman a bearer of God's image?
• Is she someone to whom I should show kindness and treat with the same love that Christ showed for her and me--in equal amounts?
• Did she do exactly what she should do for a grandpa out on an excursion to please his grandkids?
• Can I really say that "I have it all together?"

My questions force me and perhaps push you toward a position that part of me doesn't like. As I answer each question I very much want to add a "yeah but."

Some businesses chose to require a strict appearance code for their employees. Others allow rednecks to wear their John Deere caps, retired execs to don a white shirt and tie, and let gray-haired women look aged versions of June Cleaver. The donut shop I visited, obviously, pushes that freedom of choice to the max.

The bottom line has to count for something.

We enjoyed our donuts.

 

My Ears and Eyes Smell Something That Concerns Me

 I'm not going to do the research, or present a word/article count. I'm just going to ask a question. It is a question akin to, "Do you smell something burning?"

Have you noticed the frequency with which articles and even bills being considered by state legislators no longer refer to "pregnant women" but, rather, talk about "pregnant persons?" 

A bit of thinking and looking--I'll leave it up to you to do some investigation--will show the reason behind this language shift. In the new scheme of things, it is possible for a person who is a biological female, a woman (a human who from conception has the XX chromosome pairing, and who as a result typically has the ability to bear a child) to declare themself to be a male, a man (a human who from conception has the XY chromosome pairing, and who as a result typically has the ability to impregnate a woman) to become pregnant. I realize the previous sentence is complicated. I left it that way because the reasoning it is dealing with is complicated. Go back and parse it and think about it. Here is the simplified version.

In other words, if one accepts the doctrine of gender fluidity it is possible for a man to be pregnant. So one can't/shouldn't/mustn't speak about pregnant women. One needs to use the more general terms "pregnant people," "pregnant persons," or "birthing persons."

So, I pose the question more generally and simply:

Do you smell something?

What's wrong in Washington, and beyond?

 I posted a shorter version of this several weeks ago on Facebook. I decided it is worth cleaning up and posting here.

I heard the news this morning that Senator Joe Manchin, from my neighboring state of WV, killed President Bidens Build Back Better Bill.

While I'm so far from being a political pundit that I had to check the spelling of the word, I seriously disagree with that. Further, I don't think the reasoning behind that cause of legislative-death post-mortem is purely, or even mostly, political. It is but one example of the way things are in our world today.

At this point, I'm not saying whether President Biden's bill is good or bad. I am saying that it was killed by one outworking of the extreme partisanship of today's US political landscape, which is but one outworking of the postmodern zeitgeist which is the air which we all breathe.

No doubt there are many good things in the President's expansive proposal. Other things, not so much. It used to be that decisions like this were made on the basis of appealing to people of goodwill to do what is right or more right than wrong, or at least the best we can do in the current circumstances. Statesmen (persons), realizing that no manmade proposal is perfect, weighed the pros and cons. There was recognition that each representative represented a different constituency with a different set of interests. Some representatives had lines of conscience or stubbornness that they would not cross. Deals and accommodations were made. Backs were scratched. While such maneuvering often involved party alignments such legislation was often passed in a bipartisan manner. The common interests that crossed the aisle were of more importance than the partisan, unshared, interests of each side.

As I look out through my keyhole, I see an entirely different scenario. Two party machines meticulously--dare I say ruthlessly--maintain conformity to the party line in ways that differ only in degree from the methods of absolute dictators or Mafia dons. "Do what I say or I will make you suffer." In this encounter, the sides were almost evenly matched. The one vote differential allowed no room for defection. Again, from my perspective, it didn't appear that the expectation was that we can win this because "truth, the welfare of the nation, kindness, and responsibility are on our side." Instead, the expectation of victory was, "We have one more vote than the other side." I quickly add that it also appeared to me that the other side based their hope for victory or defeat on similar mathematical logic. Except.

I'm not arguing whether the Senator from my neighboring state did the right thing. As I look at the situation I don't see any other conclusion than that he thought he was doing the right thing. I figure he will pay a price for it. In that sense we clearly need more politicians like Senator Manchin.

Above the political rhetoric and maneuvering an overall principle reigns, "My party, right or wrong." I hope some lessons are learned from the current impasse. The lessons for those elected to serve us in government should be obvious, but in our eagerness to point our fingers at those we have elected are we neglecting to see how this applies to those of us who do the electing? Do we focus too much on those who are able to get things done and too little on the things they want to get done.? Is it that the people in power aren't doing the right thing or is it that we aren't putting people who think rightly in power? Or, perhaps it is both.

I think clearly the defeat of this mammoth bill points out something that's been obvious, but too seldom spoken, for quite a while, now. His Excellency Emperor Partisan (and I'm not giving this title to any particular person but to the whole syndrome that reigns) is buck naked.

EKKLESIAPROJECT.ORG

ekklesiaproject.org

The Closing Of, The Slouching Toward, and The Disposal of Unsalty Salt That Led to This Mess

 One of the things, concerning American politics, that I have thankfully observed over the years is the orderly transfer of power that takes place from one election cycle to another. Unfortunately, I see evidence that this might not be the case this time around. Personally, I don't think the chances of wide-spread violence are very high. I definitely don't see a coup in the works, but I can't ignore the recent demonstrations--some of which became riots--or the fact that some businesses and offices in major US cities have proactively boarded up their places of business against the possibility that some might "take things to the street." We pridefully claim that we aren't a "banana republic," but could we just be a republic with more bananas?

During my lifetime, to one degree or another, the United States was influenced by respect for authority, fairness, and the rule of law, that found its roots in Judeo-Christian values. I'm not saying that most of my countrymen of 40, 50, or 60 years ago were Christians (or Jews). They weren't. But, my nation was still strongly influenced by values that were in many cases drawn from Scripture, or from the natural

law that is parallel with Biblical ethics. 

I came of age in the late 60s. As a boy growing up with Beaver Cleaver in the 50s I was aware of President Eisenhower. Mostly I remember that he played golf. He considered himself to a very religious man, but he was not a part of any church. I would say that most of the adults around me in my growing-up years shared that sentiment. It was my dad's view (until he turned back the Lord in a personal way, just after I started college). People had a religion and set of values that were handed to them. Most did little if anything to strengthen that package and make sure it maintained its relevance so it could be passed on to the next generation. 

Two books that helped me, later in life, to see what was going on in my youth are The Closing of the American Mind, by Allan Bloom, and Slouching Toward Gomorrah, by Robert Bork. To use a Biblical picture, our salt became saltless and it was therefore good for nothing except to be thrown out and walked on. Even later, Cornelius Plantinga's book, Not the Way it is Supposed to Be, A Breviary on Sin, helped confirm and tidy up my thinking.

So, what do we do?

  

The simple answer is--and it's not wrong just because it is simple--to do right.

      He has told you, O man, what is good; 

      and what does the LORD require of you 

                  but to do justice, and to love kindness, 

      and to walk humbly with your God? 

(Mic 6:8)

Beyond that, or perhaps I should say, "within that" let me offer a couple of thoughts:

• Do what you can, where you can. Spend less time railing, or fretting, or rioting about what is going on Washington, or Palikir, or . . . and more time reaching out with kindness to your neighbors.
• Don't just coast, based on the moral/ethical capital of the past. Live, work, and minister in such a way that you are adding to the supply of salty salt that will help preserve coming generations from the kind of rot we see around us today. 
• Discipline yourself to discriminate between the person who holds the view to which you object, and the view held by that person. That person is created in God's image, one for whom Christ died, and she or he is a repository of unimaginable potential. That view you despise may be despicable. That person is redeemable.
• Think! Don't just feel. 
• Listen more. Talk less.
• Don't shout (unless you are warning someone of a disaster.)
• Seek to understand.
• Be kind.
• Know that God has gotten along just fine while all kinds of governments and governers functioned in this world. Our hope is in him.

Live for Jesus.

A Willingness to Challenge Culture

The news today is filled with stories about the late congressman from Georgia, John Lewis. Others who knew him and/or who have carefully researched his life should write about this great man. I'll just say he was a man of conscience, who powerfully, and often effectively, addressed some of the greatest wrongs in America, in particular the American South. Congressman Lewis had the scars to demonstrate the sincerity of his convictions.

Though, as I have admitted, I don't know a lot about Congressman Lewis, I do think I can say with confidence that he sought to fight for things that are right. To look at it from the other side, he opposed some things that he saw in his world that were/are wrong. His life was lived in the conviction that was eloquently expressed (though a case can be made not lived) by Thomas Jefferson. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . . ." There are things that we know are right and wrong. As the Apostle Paul says there is a law written in the heart of even the irreligious (Romans 2:14-15).

One of the books that we read in a class on critical thinking that I teach uses a useful illustration to ask the question as to whether there are really virtues and therefore the necessary vices that come in their absence. The author of the Book, Russ Payne says yes there are ethical realities. (An Introduction to Philosophy, see in particular chapters 9-11). He asks the question, "Is it really wrong to torture puppies?" If one lived among a people that declared that puppy torturing is a great good, would that make it right? Paynes' answer is, Yes, there are ethical realities. Kindness, for example, is a real virtue, and I would say its opposite is a real vice. J. P. Moreland, the author of another book we use in the class, upholds the same concept. Though he is an Evangelical Christian he appeals to natural law.

Two specific aspects of scriptural teaching about extrabiblical knowledge are worthy of special note. First, Scripture repeatedly acknowledges the existence of natural moral law: true moral principles rooted in the way God made things, addressed to humans as humans (instead of to man as a believing member of the kingdom of God) and knowable by all people independently of the Bible (Job 31:13-15; Romans 1–2). Among other things, what this means is that believers need not appeal to Scripture in arguing for certain ethical positions, say, in the abortion debate.

Moreland, J.P.. Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (932 of 4822). NavPress. Kindle Edition.

In the face of powerful, head-bashing opposition, Lewis said that racial segregation and its associated evils are wrong. An ethical reality is being violated. I oppose this. As a child of the South, I'm glad he did. My culture was, and in ways still is, wrong. Treating people differently because they have more melanin in their skin is not right. 

So, where does this leave us?

• Some would say that we just dump Mr. Jefferson's classic lines. The powerful people always seem to find self-evident truths that favor their kind. I think Solomon, the great thinker, saw this as well. "Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them.” (Ecclesiastes 4:1, ESV)
  But if we just lapse into the right for you but not for me relativism--the direction things appear to be moving in my lifetime--don't we lose too much?
• Clearly, the "self-evident truths" some have claimed to have observed, have turned out to be falsehoods. The phrenology of the Nineteenth Century is an example. The shape and size of one's head is not an indication of intelligence and proper station in life. From pseudo-science to bad Biblical interpretation my culture has frequently gotten it wrong. Sorting out prejudice and ethical reality is hard work. Yet a skepticism that says, Nobody, really knows what is right and wrong," leads to the postmodern tribalism into which the Western world continues to descend. Unfortunately, I see the West taking other cultures into the same pit.
• I propose that John Lewis was right. We need to oppose what is wrong. We need to stand for what is right. We need to do so humbly, knowing that we often don't get it right the first time, or second, or twentieth. We should follow our Lord's counsel and be more eager to remove logs from our own eyes than splinters from the eyes of others. We can't, however, just take a pass. We are here for a reason.

Bottom line, for those of us who know the Lord, this is part of our salt and light project. If, as I believe, there really are ethical rights and wrongs, then how can we pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it in heaven," unless we try to live out and encourage those ethical realities. If my culture says otherwise, I must be willing to change.

Can We Just All Get Along? Part 1:

Mark Galli, Franklin Graham, and some friends of mine:
I realize that by writing this, I'm taking the role of someone who steps into a domestic dispute. Before I'm done both sides might decide to unite and fight with me rather than each other. I'm motivated to stick my nose in, however, because this is a squabble that is taking place between my friends. Though I've never met either, I regard both Mark Galli and Franklin Graham as friends. I have benefitted from both of their ministries. As soon as the matter hit the fan, so to speak, some of my personal friends began to weigh in. I felt like the host at a Thanksgiving feast when war-veteran Uncle Charlie, just couldn't resist commenting on Niece Suzie's "I love Jane Fonda" sweatshirt and the vegan meal she had packed in for the occasion.
At first, I thought I would write one big peace-making piece. Instead, I'm going to dole out my "wisdom" in bite-size servings. That way you can chew on each serving for a day or two before the next mouthful is served up.
Before I offer my first pacific hors d'oeuvres (note that's a lower-case "p"), let me review what I'm talking about.

• On December 19, Editor Mark Galli published an editorial in Christianity Today stating, "Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments."
• Whatever is you may think of Galli--I have found him to be often helpful in pulling together various strands of thought in the Christian world--he is no dummy. I'm not saying that it was Galli's intention to stir up a ruckus with his frequent use of CT founder, Rev. Billy Graham's, name, but he had to have known that using Graham's name in this context could be seen as waving a red cape in front of a bull named Franklin.
• Franklin Graham, Billy's son, did not disappoint. He released a statement the next day. To no one's surprise, he disagreed with Galli. He did surprise some of us, though, when he revealed that his dad had voted for Mr. Trump.
• I have no idea how many opinion pieces followed. I saw several articles about an interview Galli did on CNN. Another article is a summary of an interview Galli had with New Yorker writer, Isaac Chotiner.
• Nothing much happens in our world without a petition or letter to sign. Not to disappoint, more than one-hundred Evangelical leaders signed a letter addressed to CT President Timothy Dalrymple. “Your editorial offensively questioned the spiritual integrity and Christian witness of tens-of-millions of believers who take seriously their civic and moral obligations.”
• Of course, Dalrymple responded, and 
• on it goes.

Let's begin by thinking about worldviews--perhaps philosophies or even Theologies are better words. What I'm talking about are those foundational truths on which we build the rest of our thinking. Our overall philosophy of life and our ethics which are part of that philosophy are based on the way we see the world. What makes the world tick? Or, perhaps more accurately, "What would make our world work the way it should?"
Since all Evangelicals, to one extent or another, hold in common the basic Gospel message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and all that these fact mean, one would think that Evangelicals share the same worldview. One might think that, but one might be wrong. The Roman Catholic Church and the early reformers all subscribed to the same creeds, yet their differences fomented reformations, martyrdoms, and wars. The varying denominations in Christendom bear witness not to what they shared, but to that over which they differed.

The operative question is often not just, "What do you think is important? but, "What do you think is most important at this time, and how does that differ from what your neighbor thinks?"
Take the present bruhaha and dig down to the basic realities--as each side sees them--that lie below the surface. Here are two matters that both sides agree on, in principle, but about which they disagree mightily in degree and emphasis--abortion and social justice. Keeping our focus on the evangelical leaders who are in this argument, it is clear that both sides are prolife. Just reading the articles I mentioned above will make that clear. Once you get below that agreement in principle, however, we notice all sorts of differences. Is this the most important issue of our day? Is it so important that someone who is not prolife disqualifies themself as being worthy to hold public office? What about prenatal deformities, rape, or incest? How do we define "health of the mother"? What difference does the answer make?
Galli's writing and Graham's humanitarian work clearly show both to be dedicated to social justice. Just exactly how does one best address life's inequities? To what extent do people today have a responsibility to repair the social legacy of their less enlightened ancestors?
There is an old joke about politics. Elections are about choosing between "Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer." (originally it was Tweedledee and Tweedledum, John Tenniel's illustration, from Through the Looking-Glass (1871)). Of course nobody in national politics is dum anymore. even if they are, brains can easily be hired. It seems that now the choice if often between Tweedle Bad and Tweedle worse. Deciding who is Bad and who is Worse is a matter of nuance. Answers to basic questions like those above are going to inform that choice. Good people will disagree.

Two more things, really quick:
Nobody wants to make an important decision based on 50.0001% certainty. In the same way that a fisherman's fish gets bigger each time he tells about his catch, decisions that barely more than a coin-toss to begin with, evolve into thunderous slam-dunks. Our craving for certitude drives us in that direction.
When our certitude is challenged we easily become like a potential mugging victim cornered in a dark alley. 2x4, rock, broken bottle, we desperately look for a weapon we can use in self-defense. In  the kind of fight this article is about, there is almost always piece of pipe nearby. It is about 2 feet long and has fitting on one end. Read the label--ad hominem, attack the spokesperson rather than what the spokesperson says.

In this case the spokesperson is me, so be nice. Chew on this until next time.
it

The Culture We Need to Resist Is Not Just on the Outside

I was privileged to speak in chapel at Pacific Islands University this past week. Perhaps the message will be posted online. We are working on doing that. I'll let you know when we succeed. To get back to my point, I spoke on A Plan For Counter-cultural Living. I was only able to scratch the surface. I'm hoping to flesh out my thoughts and post them on this blog.
For now, let me just say that our Christian sub-culture is as great a, if not a greater culture than the secular cultures in which we find ourselves. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus was primarily confronting the religious culture of First-Century Israel, a culture that grew out of the truth that came from God's words delivered to Moses on Sinai. Here is a brief video by Michael Hizer that highlights the need for Biblical Christians to not just resist the cultural pressures from outside the church, but those from within, as well.

When Tradition Challenges Scripture

Is Perception Reality? A Question for our current situation:

I have been following the reports of demonstrations, riots, emotional distress, etc. that has come an aftermath of the recent election of Donald Trump and Mike Pence.  I've also read and heard a good bit of reaction to these events.  For any who don't know me, I need to let you know that I'm in the heart of the demographic that is being talked about in many of these stories.  I'm White, conservative, Christian, straight, and from the Bible belt.  I'll try to not be scary.

Some of those who live in my cultural neighborhood have responded to the post-election reports with a combination of law-and-order rhetoric, and counsel that basically amounts to "just grow up."  I haven't been without my opinions, especially about looting and/or destruction of property, but I have tried to do something that I think all of us need to do more of--I'm trying to listen.
Sitting in my warm and comfortable living room this morning it occurs to me that a mantra that I have been reciting concerning a ministry I'm involved in probably has some relevance in the current situation in my world:

PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

Now I'm not getting all New Age-y here.  For one thing the "New Age" is old enough to be on Medicare (and since it is sick it needs to be).  I have railed against concepts like, "If you can dream it you can do it."  I know there is a certain motivational factor to this kind of statement, but I have been around long enough to also see the truth behind this cynical view from Despair.com.

What I mean when I say "Perception is Reality," is if I am going to build any kind of positive relationship with people who have a different view of what is going on around us than I do, I need to grant their view a measure of legitimacy.  Say I'm having a pretty good day.  My caffeine intake is about right.  I haven't gotten any audit notices from the IRS, and the sun is shining.  In my bliss, perhaps ignorant bliss, I greet my friend, "Hi.  How are you?"  My friend clearly doesn't get that my question was a courtesy, a greeting more than a request for information, and proceeds to spew forth a stream of that witch is dark and painful.  At this point let's assume that I really do care about my friend.  I really would like to have a relationship with him going forward.  How will that best be achieved?

• By immediately pointing out why I think his view of reality is utterly wrong?
• By questioning his maturity, intelligence, and/or spirituality?
• By uttering some feel-good platitude?  (The cartoon is offered tongue in cheek, but it make a point.)  Or,
• Taking a moment to listen to my friend.

In the end I may conclude that my friend is utterly wrong, or I may totally understand why my friend has such a dark view on such a sunny day.  Either way, if I start by listening, I have laid a foundation that could lead to productive conversation.  I can tell you by experience--experience in which I am the bad-guy--that the other three responses don't lead to that opportunity.  At least they aren't likely to.

The way others perceive reality, is the reality that has to be dealt with in getting along with those

others.  When others see reality in the same way I do, that appears to be non-problematic.  I say "appears" because our world is becoming more and more a series of echo-chambers, side by side, each surrounded by totally sound proof walls.  We hear only those who say the same thing we say.  Too often, when we venture out of the realm where all is agreeable, all we do is shout what is constantly said in our group.  We are like kids throwing at rocks at each other.  Most miss, or hit us somewhere that causes little pain, but there is a scar, somewhere under the little hair I have left, that bears witness to the reality that they don't all miss.  Some draw blood.  My Granny was right to discipline my cousin and me, not just because she hit me--boy that girl could throw--but because throwing rocks at each other is not something civilized people do.  Neither is a lot of what I see on the news, or read on Facebook.
Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that we should surrender our intellect and act as if things that matter don't.  What I am saying is that out of the things that matter it is difficult to find anything that matters any more than another human being.  Listen to James, again.

. . . the tongue [I think we can extend this other forms  of communication].
It is restless and evil, full of deadly poison.
Sometimes it praises our Lord and Father,
and sometimes it curses those who have been made in the image of God. . .
blessing and cursing come pouring out of the same mouth.
Surely, my brothers and sisters, this is not right!(James 3:8–10, NLT)

So, I've been working hard to stay out of the mudslinging business.

It doesn't help.  It just muddies things up.  I'm trying to hear.  I've read articles that forced me to my dictionary, and compelled me to go back and read paragraphs again.  I've read stuff that took pages to say, "I don't like this!"--the election, the demonstrations, etc..  I often don't agree with either--at least not completely.  I am, however, working to hear those on all sides.  I'm not saying that each of us

can create our own reality, but in the realm of, to quote that great philosopher Rodney King, just getting along, I have to start with the reality that at this moment what my friend is saying is reality as he sees it.
Like Frasier, I'm listening.  Or, at least I'm trying.

Is This The Best We Can Do?

I just read Al Mohler's blog-post of a couple of weeks ago.  I found Mohler's reasoning and conclusions to be helpful.  Central in his piece is the conviction that character does matter.  His observation agrees with mine.  Evidence--and that is all we can go on--indicates a serious lack of a solid moral base in both major presidential candidates.

Mrs. Clinton simply doesn't seem to care about truth and integrity.  The recent announcement by the FBI, though indicating that the former Secretary of State would not be indited, was hardly an indication that she is a person of character.  She is clearly dedicated to the "We will absolutely not ever interfere with any abortion." position of the the Democrat party.  I cannot say whether her position is one of personal commitment or political expediency.  Either way it is a serious ethical flaw.  On one hand it represents a disrespect for human life, on the other it displays a glaring lack of integrity,  While a case can be made that she is was the victim of her husband's adultery, and her willingness to work through those issues and preserve her family is admirable, I have not heard her offer an apology to "The vast right wing conspiracy" since it became clear that, indeed, her husband did have "sex with that woman."

Recently, Evangelical (former) leader James Dobson announced that he believed that Donald Trump is born again.  The report, based on what he heard, indicates that Paula White led the presumptive Republican candidate to faith in Jesus.  I will gladly lead the rejoicing should such a report turn out to be true, but the fact is, I have no idea whether it is true or not.  I am struck with the convenience of floating this story at a time when Republican strategists are desperate to gain Evangelical support for their candidate.  In a subsequent statement Dobson speaks with greater caution.  Like me, it now appears that he is hopeful, but agnostic on the matter.  More to the point, the reality or fiction of the reports about Trump's conversion are irrelevant to the decision before me.  I know many folk--I would probably put myself in the group--who clearly are trusting the Gospel of Christ for life and eternity, who would make horrible presidents.  It is in a different realm, but the concept is relevant.  Paul, passing on counsel to his younger delegate, Timothy, cautions him to “not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others." (1 Timothy 5:22, NASB95)  When looking for someone to lead the church the standard was not, "Is he reported to be born again?" but, does he exhibit the necessary character?"  (See 1 Timothy 3) Though such character flows from a heart changed by "grace, through faith," it takes time to be seen.  We haven't had, and we won't have, the time to inspect the fruit.

In case it isn't clear, what I'm saying is I don't see either of the major candidates to be somebody I am for. As far as it goes, that is a sentiment that I hear from a number of Evangelicals.  They aren't for either candidate, however they are more, not-for, one candidate, and so they will, therefore, vote for the other.  One reason I appreciated Mohler's article is that he doesn't make that case.  Fairly early on Russel Moore wrote on that line of reasoning.  "Should we vote for the lesser of two evils?"  I admire the clarity of his conclusion.

Our primary concern is not the election night victory party, but the Judgment Seat of Christ.
When Christians face two clearly immoral options, we cannot rationalize a vote for immorality or injustice just because we deem the alternative to be worse. The Bible tells us we will be held accountable not only for the evil deeds we do but also when we “give approval to those who practice them” (Rom. 1:32).
This side of the New Jerusalem, we will never have a perfect candidate. But we cannot vote for evil, even if it’s our only option.

 During my pastoral career I avoided endorsing candidates.  I'm not doing that now.  If anything I'm saying that I don't see either of the major candidates as worthy of my vote.  That's bipartisan, folks.  What will I do on November 8?  I don't yet know.  I am trying to approach this mess in such a way that my integrity will be intact on the other side.  I know that many of you will disagree with me on one or more of my points.  I have little interest in arguing.  I'd rather encourage.  Do what is right; at least try.

 

Instead of demanding that others keep Christ in Christmas, how about keeping Christ in Christmas?

I hope this post will be of interest to pastors and church leaders.  It contains an idea for doing something positive in regard to keeping Christ in Christmas.

I think I have a badge, maybe underneath my socks, that says something like, "I say Merry Christmas,"  or, "It's OK to say Merry Christmas."  I wore it for a few times when I first got it, but as the campaign to "Keep Christ in Christmas" became more militant and political, I put it away.  I am all for keeping Christ in Christmas, but I don't see any reason why I should pressure retailers into forcing their employees to use a particular greeting.  There are Jews, Muslims, and people of other faiths, or no faith, who have no reason to wish me a Merry Christmas.  We can debate the point on another occasion, but there are some who believe that followers of Christ are a negative influence in our communities.  They find the celebration of Christ's birthday to be a bad thing.  I am glad that I live in a country in which people are free to worship, or not worship, as they choose.  I will be glad to discuss why I think Jesus Christ is Lord, but I won't participate in any attempt to force others to act like they believe something they don't.

The above gives some background to why I am so proud of my church for its Live Nativity presentation.  We aren't twisting arms to get others to "Keep Christ in Christmas."  Rather in a warm, winsome way the folk in my church are offering our neighbors an opportunity to experience the story of Christmas.  Lo and behold, when you look into the story Christ is right there, and not just in a manger.

First let me remove some possible misconceptions.  Ours is a small church.  On a good Sunday we have 150 in attendance.  No one died and left us a large bequest to finance this ministry.  We use what we have--primarily a willingness to work hard and the good will of some neighbors to put on this presentation.  Basically what I'm saying is if we can do this any church can.

Here is how it works.  Hopefully you can find some ideas here that can be adapted to your situation.

Because of the goodwill of our local Parks Department we are able to use a very nice public park for our presentation.  We transform the picnic shelter into the Village of Bethlehem.  Guests are welcomed to Bethlehem by the Mayor.  They are informed that Caesar Augustus has decreed that all must sign the census.  A money changer provides the visitors with Shekels
so they can purchase "bread" (mostly cookies,
though in the past we have offered bread and fruit).  Bethlehem is the House of Bread.  A Roman soldier struts about and makes himself obnoxious.  The Mayor warns visitors to guard their Shekels and women from the Romans.  Kids can play simple games, and buy some trinkets in the shops.

Every 15 minutes or so, visitors in the Bethlehem are encouraged to take a ride on one of the

"strange chariots" that have been provided.  Reports of strange things out in the countryside have been heard--angels, the birth of a king, etc.  Guests ride, sort of hayride style, on a trailer.  (On occasion we have used walking tours.) They are accompanied by a guide.  This year our guides included: a team, the two thieves on the cross; Elizabeth; Simon the Zealot; and Mary in her later years.  In years past we have had the Apostles John, Peter, and Paul; the little girl Jesus raised from the dead; Nicodemus; Judas (yes that Judas); and one time, Satan, though he was not able to finish the tour.  He just couldn't get past the empty tomb.
These trailers take guests past scenes that portray:

•  the annunciation,
• the shepherds in the field and the announcement by the angels,
• The scene at the manger,
• The visit of the wisemen to the young king,
• A scene by the sea of Galilee,
• The Crucifixion,
• The Empty Tomb,
• And the Great White Throne.

Instead of a scold, demanding that our neighbors say, "Merry Christmas," rather than, "Happy Holidays," our community is greeted with a warm smile, some cookies, an opportunity to visit with friends, and a winsome, unique presentation of the greatest story ever told.  Granted we are a Bible-belt community, but the general response we get after our presentation is a warm thanks.  Many families return year after year.  The only negative responses I recall are complaints that we only do our presentation for one weekend, and that the presentation by Satan, "Lou C. Fir" was just too frightening.  (Our ushers warned people about this particular guide, but some did not heed the warning.  There were those who spoke highly of the devil being a guide.  I think they enjoyed the spectacle of his defeat, and seeing things from a different perspective opens one's mind.)  

We know that we can't accurately portray these events.  We try to not include elements that are false--

though we cross the line with little kid angels--and we point out where some of the popular conceptions of the Christmas story are false, or at least not known for sure.  What we are trying to do is give a feel of what it was like, and give folk something to think about.  We want to fuel some positive conversations.  We don't charge anything to participate in the Live Nativity.  We offer it as a gift to our community.  It is not a good evangelistic tool, in that we don't have a list of folk who have given their lives to the Lord as a result of our event.  It does very much keep Christ in Christmas.  It is a lot more trouble to host a Live Nativity than it is to put on a button, but I think it is much more effective.  Billy agrees.

You can find more pictures of our event here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.10156292371485054&type=1

We would be glad to talk to you about how you could host a Live Nativity in your community.  Write us at covbchm@gmail.com.

Merry CHRISTmas.

Maybe we can't all just get along, but can we sit down and talk?

Again the issue of Abortion/Sanctity of human life is front and center with those of us who take the teaching of God's Word seriously.  Some things are abundantly clear, but that doesn't mean knowing what to think, what to say, and what to do is easy.  It's not.

First, after all these years, why are we talking about this distasteful concept again?  We've got dead babies, women wrestling with horrendous life and death decisions, politicians being politicians, and people screaming at each other.  Can't we just agree to disagree and all get along?  I'd love to get along, but we can't simply ignore a horrendous moral ethical issue and pretend as if this doesn't matter.  Many of us believe that human lives are being lost.  Even many, perhaps most, of those who declare themselves to be pro-choice no longer try to deny that what is being removed from a woman's body is a human being.  Sophisticated ultra-sound and late-term abortions have made it harder and harder to deny that this little creature who looks every bit like a little baby is indeed a human.  For now I'll let others present the scientific evidence.  I'll just function in the realm of the obvious.  This is a baby.  I'll come back to that in a moment.
As I write a debate rages.  I recently wrote to my congressman, and one of my senators.  I'm working on the letter to the other senator.  My congressman, Morgan Griffith, who voted for the bill defund Planned Parenthood (There are an abundance of articles about this bill, spun in various directions, here is one that has a pro-life perspective: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4496835232001/gop-bill-to-defund-planned-parenthood-passes-in-the-house/?#sp=show-clips) included this in his carefully worded reply:

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, continues to investigate Planned Parenthood aggressively. I joined several members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in sending a letter to the President of Planned Parenthood requesting a briefing for committee staff that includes information on several pressing issues raised by the disturbing video, such as Planned Parenthood's consent procedures for fetal tissue sale and the price paid to the organization for fetal tissue. The Committee has held interviews with and continues collecting information from Planned Parenthood officials and tissue collection organizations to uncover more about these practices. 
     Other House committees with jurisdiction are also conducting a review of Planned Parenthood's alleged acts, probing whether relevant federal laws have been properly enforced, and scrutinizing fetal tissue collection practices. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has requested more information on funds that Planned Parenthood receives from the federal government and documents illuminating the process by which tissue collection organization StemExpress obtained fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood. In addition to examining the Department of Justice's enforcement of laws related to fetal tissue collection, the House Judiciary Committee is holding a series of hearings entitled, "Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining the Horrific Abortion Practices at the Nation's Largest Abortion Provider." 
     House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) also announced their commitment to uncovering more information about the claims in the video.  

The internet and other sources have an abundance of material about the development of life in the womb.  Even if we are not sure, should we not give the benefit of the doubt to these amazing little creatures that grow inside their moms?  All kinds of activities are restricted because the result of those activities might lead to the death of a human being.  Can we be so dedicated to protected the rights of the expectant mother that we neglect any protection for the life of the unborn child?

Any time we are dealing with an unborn child, we are dealing with the life of a woman.  The chosen titles of the two sides in the argument reveal each sides particular focus.  Those who identify as pro-choice emphasize the importance of caring for the woman in whose body the child is growing.  Those who call themselves pro-life focus on the need to protect these most defenseless of humans.  Each side has driven its stake in the ground on what it sees as a slippery slope--going down-hill and opposite directions--put on their badges, picked up their banners and pretty much refuses to hear anything the other side has to say.

I'm pro-life.  I believe that life begins at conception.  That being said, let me see if I can encourage us--all of us--to pursue a course that might actually lead to a solution.  I hope you'll be interested enough to stay with me and join the conversation.  I'm planning to continue it for a couple of posts.  I have already shared some other thoughts over at STTA.   I promise that if you'll be respectful, I'll treat you with respect.  Can we at least talk?  If you'll leave your campaign posters at home, even politicians are welcome to join us.  Unfortunately, the medium won't allow me to offer you coffee.  You'll have to bring your own.

More to come:
 

The Benedict Option, Minds That Have Been Closed, and Lions In Waiting:

The "Benedict Option" is a concept that has been fairly big lately in the online neighborhood where I hang out.
Breakpoint recently interviewed Rod Dreher, who has written about the concept.

Click here for a brief commentary, and/or here for  1/2 hour  interview with Dreher.  

I appreciate Dreher and Breakpoint encouraging this conversation.  I look forward to hearing from others about how Christians need to live according to a different standard than the "over-culture" that dominates our society.  In the past we Christians in the USA--others will need to calibrate their own communities--have lived in a culture that was still clearly marked by a system of Christian ethics.  Even the "evil" people in our culture acknowledged the morality of the mores they violated.  "I know I should, but don't."  What has changed in the past few years is that now the majority culture is looking at what could be called "traditional values," or what I would call, "values built on the left-overs of a Biblical worldview"--the standard by which the Cleaver family lived, or what what was more formally called "civic religion," and saying that is evil.  I read somewhere a while back that it used to be that our neighbors didn't like Christians who take the Bible seriously because we talked about sin too much.  Now the same culture looks at us and says "I don't like you because what you believe is sinful."
In The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom spoke of students in the prestige colleges of the day as believing in only one virtue, openness.  The young leaders who were being trained in the era Bloom spoke of have spawned the college, high-school, and elementary teachers who have shaped our world.  As the mono-virtue of openness/acceptance has permeated our society, we have passed through the live-and-let-live phase to a new standard.  It is not sufficient to give someone the freedom to do that to which I object, now I must fully embrace and rejoice in others expression of their freedom to do as they please.  Not only must one obey Big Brother, one must love Big Brother. Since those of us who take the Bible seriously cannot be accept that which God's word rejects we are the evil ones.     
The situation in which we find ourselves is not new.  Christians in the Roman Empire were accused of being atheists.     

As Christians became more numerous, and their beliefs more well known, the charges of immorality became harder to sustain. But one accusation is repeated time and time again- "Atheism"; rejection of the tutelary deities of their communities. This was a very serious matter; deities were believed to bring good fortune to a town, and slighting them might bring down their wrath. According to Tertullian: "If the Tiber reaches the walls, if the Nile does not rise to the fields, if the sky doesn’t move or the earth does, if there is famine, if there is, plague, the cry is at once: "The Christians to the lion!"" Outbreaks of persecution often coincided with natural disasters. Earthquakes in Asia in 152, and an outbreak of plague in Alexandria at the time of Origen, were blamed on the Christians. Around 270, Porphry blamed the plague in Rome on the fact that the temple of Aesculapius had been abandoned for the Christian churches. This sort of accusation was persistent; as late 419, Augustine wrote "The City of God" to prove that Christians hadn’t caused the fall of Rome by slighting the old gods. The charges of atheism and immorality help explain the hatred of the mob for Christians, evidenced in the pogroms in places such as Smyrna and Lyons.  (http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/persecution.html)

 We are the new atheists.  We reject the god of absolute autonomy.  We can no longer live as if things haven't changed.  They have.

Or, maybe not.

Religious Freedom and the right to discriminate:

Several pieces of input come together in my mind this morning.
Maybe it is just the cyber-neighborhood that I hang out in, but around here there has been a lot of talk about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Is it a tool of raw bigotry?
Is it a guarantee of due process before one can be forced to do something that he finds religiously objectionable?
Probably the answer is "Yes." to both questions.  Or to be more specific, "It depends."
Unadulterated, evil, malicious bigotry does exist.  Far too often it wears the clothing of religion--to my horror, and perhaps shame, too often the robes of Christianity.  Those intent on getting their way, and keeping "those other people" from getting theirs will use whatever weapon they find handy to enforce their "standards."  I'm sure there are Hoosiers who fit that description.  They are everywhere.  It is equally clear that "Religious Freedom" is being redefined into oblivion.

• Ross Douthat of the New York Times warned about this a couple of years ago.    
• He weighs in on the current debate with some thought provoking questions here.
• Al Mohler gives "evidence for [what he calls a] massive and dangerous shift" here.
• Here is a lovely article that helps put the matter in perspective, and, perhaps, provides a model for civil behavior, as opposed to civil suits.

Religious freedom is being redefined in two ways.

1. It is being seen as a purely private matter.  One is free to be religious as long as it does not effect others in any way, emphasize the any.
   At this point the redefinition is a matter of degree.  Some of the religions and philosophies of the world have held as one of their basic beliefs the superiority of their kind to any other people in the world.  In extreme cases such religious beliefs include the right to, or even the obligation to, kill all others "who aren't like us."  We rightly defeated Nazism over such a doctrine.  I'm glad to say that no one (except perhaps abortionists) can successfully defend themselves against murder by pleading, "My religion made me do it."
   In today's climate, though, no slight to a representative of an oppressed class is too small, to be seen as greater than any breach of conscience of one who objects, "I can't in good conscience do that."
   Let's not forget that we are not talking about lives being taken, or genocide, or whole communities being deprived of education or other basic services.  The recent cases are about cake, pizza, and pictures, all of which can be easily obtained elsewhere. 
2. As the above would indicate, religious liberty is now seen as a right in small print, at the bottom of the list, below other far more important rights.  
   Society says, "It's not important.  Get over it!"

I recently watched a TV show in which there was a mock trial pitting the rights of religious people to discriminate against the rights of others to not be discriminated against.  It was interesting.  Good arguments exist on both sides. You may find it hard to believe but there is a right to discriminate.  My older son's former career was management in poultry processing plants.  Two of the plants he worked in provided food products for specialty markets.  One plant would periodically do a run of Halal chickens.  "Halal" is the word used by Muslims to describe the kind of food that they regard as clean.  Among the other requirements for a chicken to be Halal is that it must slaughtered by a Muslim.  Another plant where Chad worked provided poultry for the Kosher market in the New York City area.  The staff includes many rabbis, the birds are killed by shochets, a person who has been specially trained and licensed to slaughter animals and birds in accordance with the laws of shechita. The facility has a place for the shochets to take a ritual bath before their shift begins.  In both operations there were jobs that my son could not fill.  Because the companies were involved in providing products for people with high religious motivations they had to discriminate in their hiring practices.  

Historically, courts and governments had a mandate to balance the right to discriminate against the right to be treated equal.  

What is happening today is one side of the argument is being removed by force.

A "Senior Religious Leader" Condemns the Murders in Chapel Hill.

I just read, on a friend's Facebook page, about the murder of three young adults in Chapel Hill, NC.
here & here
The killings have an obvious inflammatory twist.  The victims were Muslim.  The alleged perpetrator is an atheist who had made his anti-religion views known.
My friend had merely posted the first story with the comment "awful."  I absolutely agree.
Another comment-er said, "How sad. Three non-extremist Muslims killed by an extremist atheist. I wonder what his reasoning was."  Again I agree, but not because "three non-extremist Muslims were killed by an extremist atheist."
I started writing the following as a comment on my friend's Facebook wall, but then realized it was too much for that venue.  Even though my friends page has a bigger audience than this blog, I choose to write my comments here.

I agree this is a terrible act.  I do take exception to the comment, however, that implies that this act is sad because of the religious views of the victims, or the lack of religion, and extremism of the alleged perpetrator.  What is horribly sad is that three people--image-bearers of our Creator and therefore possessing lives of value beyond our ability to measure or express--were wrongfully killed.  The Sixth Commandment does not contain any commentary on the racial or religious make-up of the people under consideration.  People's lives are worthy of protection because they are people. Period!  Adding to the tragedy of what happened in Chapel Hill is that, apparently, another human being, who likewise bears God's image, has so distorted that image that he was willing to perform such a heinous act.
The second news story above indicates that the motivation for this killing my not have been religious at all, but, rather, a dispute over parking.  If that is the case, is this crime any less awful?  Not in the least.  We should be outraged because God's standard for human habitation on His earth has been violated, and because His image has been further marred.
The first story indicates that some folk interested in making a political/social justice statement out of a horrible tragedy are calling for "senior religious leaders" to condemn this act.  I'm sure I'm not who they have in mind, but I am a religious leader, and I am almost 65, so I qualify.

I CONDEMN THIS ACT.

I condemn all unwarranted taking of human life.  I uphold the sanctity of human life without regard for racial, social, national, religious, or gender-related considerations.  The accused in this case should be given a fair trial.  The families and friends of the victims should be able to grieve the loss of their loved ones without political or media pressure.  Their community, including Christian neighbors and friends should reach out to them with comfort.  There should be no attempt to build a riot, demonstration, or petition-drive on the back of this crime.
Further, to stretch my already thin "religious leader" status even more, I wish to go on record as upholding the sanctity of all human life.  People's lives' have value because of the image of God that we bear.  That is true in Chapel Hill, Mosul, Afghanistan, and wherever the life of a fellow human being hangs in the balance.

World Vision, A Survey:

I have not had any close alliance with World Vision, so there is a lot I don't know about them.  I see their ads and, from time to time, read reports of their work around the world, and was glad they were relieving suffering, and providing opportunities for those in our world who are in great need.  That they do this work in the name of Christ is commendable.

The announcement that World Vision in the United States is open to employing those who profess faith in Christ, who agree to WV's basic statement of faith, and who are also legally in a homosexual marriage, hit the Christian--especially--the Evangelical community like a plane-load of sacked up rice.

Maybe Richard Stearns simply wanted to get his message out before everyone else did it for him, but if he thought that his news release announcing WV's policy change would control the spin, he certainly misjudged.  Pretty much everybody that is anybody in the Evangelical world, and beyond, has weighed in on the subject.  My purpose here is not to rehash the matter in my own words.  More capable, not to mention quicker, writers and commentators have already explored WV's announcement.  I figure it is worth the time it takes to think through the issues involved, because it is likely that there will be other similar announcements from other ministries.  Those of who labor in relative obscurity have to make up our minds.  This is the issue of the day.  What follows is a brief list of some online comments and reactions, with brief descriptions and comments from me.  Hopefully what this will do is pull some material together so you can make better use of your time.
You are welcome.  :)

Richard Stearns's announcement:
Stearns's apologetic is that he and WV are seeking unity.  There is much I could say, I'll leave it at, "He didn't convince me."

Here is a brief critique of the WV decision, by Jim Denison.

John Piper makes the point that WV's decision "trivializes perdition — and therefore, the cross — and  . . . sets a trajectory for the demise of true compassion for the poor."
A friend of mine, who doesn't have national prominence, but who should, Norm Dietsch, commented on Piper's piece:  "As to the World Vision pres. argument that the issue divides churches and families, I wonder if he has heard that even the humble Jesus had a word to say about division.. Luke 12: 49-53.  We, too, care about the homosexual community-enough to stand for the truth of Scripture and to bring the good news of redemption and reconciliation for all sinners, and we recognize we are no better, but in need of the same redemption and reconciliation."

Al Mohler makes the same point John Piper makes and also warns about the slippery slope on which WV, and any other organizations who adopt similar policies now find themselves. ". . . moral revolutions are marked by events that signal major turning points in social transformation. Yesterday, [the day of the WV announcement], will be remembered as one of those days."
Warning: In spite of what some would tell us, some slopes truly are slippery, and some slick spots really are slanted.

Mark Tooley sees the bottom of the hill.  He simply declares "WORLD VISION GOES LIBERAL.  And of course it doesn't think it has.  Tooley's prediction or statement of fait accompli is not without evidence.  He refers to fairly recent history and quotes from some other conservative Evangelicals who agree.

Maybe I'm being too harsh.  I really like the man.  But I found Franklin Graham's announcement a bit self-serving.  I don't disagree with what he says, it just kinda sounded like he was saying "OK all you righteous people who are rightly offended at what World Vision did, the line to give money through a good organization forms right here."  As I say, maybe I'm being judgmental, and I continue to support Samaritan's Purse efforts but read on . . .

Matthew Lee Anderson helps us wrestle with some practical issues.  What happens when organizational problems intersect with human needs?  I'm not one of them, but thousands of Christians are involved in supporting a child through WV.  Should they just stop.  In a well-reasoned article, MLA offers some alternatives.

My list is clearly lacking a defense, other than Stearns's own, of WV's action.  If I find one, or if you point one out to me, I'll include it in the next post.


Before we go, let's make sure we remember, all over the world there are people, most of them children, in desperate need.  Whatever we conclude about WV's new HR policy, let's not forget them.