The on-going question of cremation versus burial:

Here js a brief article that, IMHO, ought to be read by all pastors, and any others who help folks make decisions surrounding the death of a loved one. That includes virtually all of us, sooner or later, so this is a matter that ought to be dealt with as part of a church's teaching. This article touches on a number of points that ought to be further explored and discussed. 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/cremation-burial-choice/

I encourage you to read the article rather than merely my thoughts about it, but to encourage a conversation, I offer the following:

• Justin Dillehay, a Baptist pastor from Tennessee, does a pretty good job of staying in the road on this tough issue. He avoids the extreme of saying what we do with our dead doesn't matter (for the record, I agree with him. I think it does matter). He maintains that for a long time, standard Western burial practice was referred to as "Christian burial," and that this means something.
  He also refrains from adopting a legalistic tone.  "[I]t’s not that cremation is a violation of a direct biblical command." "[T]here’s no moral prohibition on cremation in the Bible."
• There is no doubt that Dillahay, comes down on the side of maintaining "Christian burial" as the norm for God's people. In doing so, he in no way--that I could see anyhow--drifts into the clearly heretical notion that what we do with the departed loved one's body has any impact on that loved one's eternal state. Though he does make the case for burial, he refrains from saying that cremation is devoid of at least reasonable justification.
• One reasonable justification is cost. At least twice in the article, Dillehay mentions this. He even implies, if not flat-out says, that churches ought to be of some help in this regard.
• While Dillehay does not frame it in these words, his article brings out two important facts about sound Theology: 1) A sound Theology is integrated. Every point of Theology touches on every other point of Theology. Dillehay raises the question, without answering it, as to whether humans are ensouled bodies or embodied souls. I'm not sure those binary choices are adequate, but this is a short article.  That touches on the intermediate state of the dead and the nature of the resurrection and my second observation about the A sound Theology, 2) Sound Theology leads to right practice. One flows from the other.

(Concerning the intermediate state, I found this article that gives an introduction to three views, two of which are quite common. The article does not discuss a fourth view, "soul sleep.")

I'll make three comments that constitute some of my reactions to the article.

1. Dillehay rightly criticizes the "empty shell" descriptions that are often used to describe death, especially in explaining death to children. Yet, he also refers to scriptures that speak of the separation of body and soul. One has to dig deeper on this.
2. While Dillehay speaks of the reality of the financial difference between burial and cremation, he doesn't pursue it much. Actually, that might have strengthened his case. (See below) Given the popular impression that people have about the financial difference between cremation and burial, the financial considerations are huge, bigger than the article admits. (More below)
3. As Pastor Dillehay indicates this is a question that is worth pursuing. Four times in my career it loomed large for me.
   Funerals (and burials) are for the living. Dillehay is right. What we do with the body of a loved one (and what we request be done with our own remains) does say something.
   Fairly early in my pastoral career, a dear saint, someone I look forward to seeing in heaven, died. There were essentially no resources for a funeral, etc. The oldest son, in a very cavalier manner, declared that they would cremate the remains and go on with life. Probably stepping over a line--if not several--I declared that this son might do that to his father, but I wasn't going to allow that to happen to my friend. This man was a loved part of my church and someone who had lived in my home while he recovered from a serious health issue. Even though this was fifty years ago, when cremation was much less socially acceptable, my decision was not that cremation was absolutely wrong. Rather, it came from a conviction that what this son was saying about the worth of his father was definitely wrong. My church stepped up, and while I don't remember the details, my friend was properly honored and buried (not saying he couldn't have been properly honored had his body been cremated).
   Several years ago my wife and I served as missionaries on two different islands half a world away. What my wife would have done had I died "out there," or what I would have done had she died out there obviously remains an unknown. I told my wife, "If I die while we are out here, my recommendation is to have my body cremated. That way you carry my remains back home in a suitcase." Since then I've been told that is technically illegal, though it is often done. Transporting a body by air is quite expensive. 
   The other two experiences have to do with my Mother-in-law and my Mom. Both of these dear Christian ladies died as widows, away from the place where they and the rest of the family wanted them to be buried. Burial was the family consensus in both cases. I knew enough to know that the cost difference between cremation and burial consists not so much in the actual cost of the two procedures but in the cost of the "services" associated with "Christian burial." In both cases, family members transported the body from one state to another themselves. This was done legally and respectfully. Both were buried in inexpensive containers, the industry equivalent of a "plain pine casket." For each, a graveside service was conducted for only close friends and family, while a memorial service sans the body, and a time of visitation, was held at their respective churches. The casket was draped with a cloth out of respect not only for the deceased but for the mourners. At the visitation and memorial service, a picture was in place of the usual casket and body. All was handled with full respect. In fact, concerning one of these women who was known for her thrift in life, the fact that she was buried economically was an honor to her memory. The bottom line was there was little difference in the cost of the burial and what the cost of a cremation would have been.
   In other words, I would say that in addition to the Theological considerations, creative economic alternatives to typical funeral home procedures ought to be explored.

I think your thoughts in the comments could be useful to others who need to guide others through death-related decisions.

Tribute to Faithful Servant that Provides a Critique of Missions Philosophy

 I write this brief post from the guest house on the Campus of Amano Christian School, in Chingola, Zambia. My purpose in coming here is to be an encouragement to some Liebenzell USA missionaries.  Kathy and I are involved with LMUSA.

I've read Kevin Bauder's weekly articles for some time now. During some down-time, here in Africa, I took time to read this week's post. In it, Bauder gives deserved tribute to a faithful missionary who served behind the scenes for many years and, in the end, accumulated a major impact. Likely, like me, you didn't know Richard Redding. However, especially if you are a pastor or someone involved in Great Commission ministry in other ways, I encourage you to read Bauder's piece. In paying tribute to this largely unknown servant, Bauder exposes some troubling trends in current conservative Evangelical mission work, especially regarding who is and who isn't a real missionary.

I saw this during my years of pastoring and working with missions from that perspective. Now as I'm involved in missionary care I see the impact from a new perspective. I encourage you to read the article, it's not long, and draw your own conclusions. I welcome your interaction.

Henry Kissinger and Solomon

 I just heard on the radio that Henry Kissinger, one of the world's most influential people, in the mid-twentieth Century, died at the age of 100. 

The New York Times called him "mesmerizing." He shared the Time Magazine's 1972 title, "Man of the Year," with President Richard Nixon. It is hard to name a world leader of that era with whom Kissinger was not involved. He dated Hollywood starlets and was often the featured character in the news stories of his day. In fact, he and perhaps the best-known journalist of the day, Barbara Walters, were the subject of gossip column rumors.
In a recent interview, marking his 100th Birthday, Ted Koppel commented, "He remains relevant on a global scale." If memory serves me correctly, once in a conversation with Gold Meir, President Nixon said, "We have something in common. We both have Jewish Secretaries of State." To which the Israeli Prime Minister replied, "Yes, but mine speaks better English."  I remember his heavily accented, somewhat mumbly manner of speaking. There was never any doubt, however, that the man was brilliant. Even though I speak more clearly than the former diplomat, I don't recall any two heads of state ever joking about me.

Kissinger's life is an apt illustration of the Bible Book of Ecclesiastes. He had everything, but in the end, he died. 

   “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13–14, ESV)  

Is 80 to Old for the President of the USA? What About Me?

 Listening to the news this morning, I heard several talking heads bring up the question about whether the President, Joe Biden, and the leading Republican candidate, former President, Donald Trump are too old to serve as leader of the United States.

In spite of the fact that at 73 years of age, I find myself saying, "I resemble that," this is a question that needs to be considered. To put it in the bluntest terms, we don't want someone having a "senior moment" when they push the nuclear button. To push things to the other extreme, though, I sure don't want to give a young hothead the opportunity to start a nuclear holocaust, either. The founding fathers of our republic recognized the need for maturity when they put an age threshold in place for the presidency. Those less than 35-years-old need not apply.

For the record, according to the National Park Service, "The average age [of those who wrote our constitution] was about 45 years. The youngest, Dayton, at 26, was one of three men in their twenties, the others being Spaight and Charles Pinckney. Eleven were in the thirties, 13 in the forties, and 8 in the fifties. Jenifer, Livingston, and Sherman were in the sixties, and Franklin was in his eighties." Dr. Franklin as he was known, one of the most respected minds in the world of his day, was in the time of life of the two current leading candidates to be our next president. Perhaps a case could be made that half-a-Franklin is better than about any politician available to us today, but that's a discussion for another day. I will say, if Ben were running today, I think I'd have more problems with his dalliances with younger women, to whom he was not married, than about the number of candles on his birthday cake.

Is an 80-year-old, qualified to be president?

Leading a nation, or any other organization for that matter, requires not only knowledge but wisdom. We tend to associate wisdom with age. Yet, we all know older folks who have only grown more bitter, prejudiced, angry, and deeper in their rut with each passing year. 

Leadership, likewise, requires knowledge. In our lightning-quick, changing world, keeping up is often associated with youth. I seldom meet someone in their 70s and beyond, who says things like, "Now that I've gotten older, I master new skills more easily,"  "I find my memory has improved." or, "I'm mentally quicker than I've ever been."

Yet, on an intellectual level, I have found as I have grown older, that the smartest, quickest, person in the room is not always the rightest. I think the ideal leader is one in whom there resides enough knowledge and intellect to follow and sufficiently understand new situations, problems, and proposed solutions, and who possesses enough wisdom and has a well-enough-tuned moral compass to decide what is best and right. 

If we accept what is obvious to all of us of a certain age, that, slow though it may be, mental acuity like physical prowess declines with age, while if we pay attention and don't let negative emotions dominate wisdom increases, then somewhere in the intersection of those two graph-lines there is a sweet spot. I've yet to meet a 16-year-old who has attained that balance. When I visit the nursing home I meet folks who are well past it. But where in between those poles is the magic age? The constitution says that the lower limit is 35-years-old (one current candidate for president is only 38). In spite of Dr. Franklin's record, is it time to place a limit at the other end of the age spectrum? Some say it is.

It depends (go with the pun if you want to).

Rather than focus on how old the president should be, I am thinking more about what do I do, what can I do, and what should I do at the age I am? Maybe some of you can help me with this. Maybe we can help one another. Here are some thoughts. I offer them in the hope that my mind is still acute enough to make sense and that my heart is wise enough to understand what really matters and sort better from not-so-much.

• This one applies to both the young and old. I ought to live my life--especially the part of my life that has to do with learning and self-improvement--in such a way so that when I am older and my knowledge-izer begins to deteriorate or deteriorates more, there is still a reservoir from which my wisdom-ificator can draw. I need to depend on that.
• I very much need to know the difference between things that are new and better and those that are old and essential. As an older guy I think I'm better off focusing on the latter.
• I may need to admit that in certain areas I can't keep up anymore. I need to have others--probably younger others--who can tell me what I need to know about the latest and maybe greatest. I may choose not to go there, but I need to know that wisdom and curmudgeonliness are cousins. Go with wisdom.
• As my ability to hold on to things diminishes, I need to be more careful about what I hold onto.
• I need to know that it is wise to consider new ideas. For as long as I can, as much as I can, and as effectively as I can, I need to keep learning. I should not, however, waste that precious ability on the trivial.
• In the same way that I have started using stair rails, I need to have intellectual assist devices. For instance, a search engine provides a quick check for spelling, correct names, dates, and other points of knowledge. It is wise to know that I may not be as smart as I used to be. I need trusted/trustworthy people who can help me on this. 
• When possible, I ought to maximize collaboration--by the way, I think the same is true for you youngsters. Wouldn't you love to listen in on the conversation that Franklin and those twenty-something constitution writers had?
• An article I read several years ago suggested that guys like me need to turn loose of the reins of leadership and embrace the mantle of sagacity (those are my words of summary).
• I need to know when to quit.

• I need to know when to quit!

No one but the rebuked should know when you rebuke. Everyone should know when you praise.

 My wife is a John Maxwell fan. She listens, just about everyday to his "Minute with Maxwell" spot. When one particularly strikes her, she shares it with me. It's just one of the many reasons that I love, admire, and appreciate Kathy.

She sent me one today in which guest speaker, Joe Mamby, emphasizes what I regard as absolutely essential part of good leadership--Praise in Public, Admonish in Private. Joe links the concept to another trait that is also key to leaders--a proper understanding of patience. I hadn't thought of that connection, at least not in the way Joe presents it.

The "Praise in Public, Admonish in Private" concept is really a "duh" rule of leadership. It is so obvious for several reasons.

• We all vicerally react against a leader who dumps on a subordinate in a public setting. It's like the eighth-grade bully picking on a skinny sixth-grader just for the sick fun of it. What is the skinny kid supposed to do, or what can the unfortunate subordinate do except act like a duck in the rain--just duck, let it rain, and hope that at least some of it will roll off.
• The above reason is just one of the reasons why the violation of this fundamental leadership principle is toxic to the long-term success of an organization. We don't like that kind of leader. We dread the day when we will trip the tirade trip-wire. We tend to keep our heads down in that environment. We are unwilling to take a chance, or be creative even if we are convinced that to do so would be to the benefit of the organization. Sometimes even that doesn't work. On occasion subordinates get a public dressing down for not being more bold. When a worker can't win he/she is likely to quit.
• The public tirade almost never leads to constructive instruction. The end of the dressing down is usually something like, "Go forth and figure out how to do better." Sometimes--in my opinion, rarely--the humiliated worker will go on a self-education program and actually improve. More often he/she will just learn to duck and hide more effectively, that, and, start working on their resume.

It is obvious, yet frequently forgotten or ignored.

The Minute with Maxwell spot had barely gotten started before I remembered the most glaring violation of this principle of leadership that I have ever seen. I was involved with an organization that depended for its life on the good will of a regulatory agency. We were enduring an inspection by a team from that agency. In normal circumstances, I think the team members are really nice people. In this circumstance there was such a huge power differential that they came across as anything but nice. In my view, they had an entitlement mentality. They had the power, others were expected to cater to them. One of my associates in this organization was found wanting by the inspectors. There is a pretty serious protocol that this team followed. At the closing meeting of the inspection tour my coworker, a person who bears the image of God, a dedicated servant, one who had worked very hard for the success of this organization, had to sit, without any recourse and listen to the clinical description of their failure to measure up. At the end, when I asked for some time before visiting team left, to give my colleague some time to recover, and make graceful, or at least less ignomious exit, the leader of the team objected. They were in a hurry. We took the time anyhow. It was not only wrong. It was immoral.

Joe Mamby links the concept to patience. I think it is a valid linkage. As a leader, I am ashamed to say that there have been times when I was in the place of that inspection team, and I, too, have failed. I should have been patient enough to forgo the perverted feel-good moment of "lording-it-over" (1 Peter 5:3) another. I should be patient enough to go the long route of shephering the person (see the context in 1 Peter). On those occasions when I failed I foolishly and wrongly traded a moment of feel-good superiority, or adherence to an unfeeling protocol, for an opportunity to help someone grow. What is needed is the self-control element of patience. 

At the bottom of this Praise/Admonish principle is a basic fundamental fact--people are special. They bear the image of God. They are the ones for whom Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. They are more important than me looking powerful, in control, or ruthless. They are more important than protocol. As a leader I need to remember that. I am responsible to lead an organization to succeed. If a worker is not contributing to that success I need to correct, instruct, encourage, and, yes, on occasion, reassign, or even fire them. But, always with the thought in mind that this is a person who is highly valued by God. Joe's principle of leadership is inline with that.

I'm no longer involved in the organization that was being inspected. After the event I described above, I wrote to the person in charge. I was assured that they would look into it. I hope they have. I need to continually look into my practice in this regard. 

Don't Water Down The Homiletical Soup

 Reading in Jeremiah, this morning, I was reminded of a proverb I have tried to keep in mind all of my ministry life. I'll tell you the proverb in a moment, but first I'll share a portion of the passage that provoked my thought.

Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? 30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who steal my words from one another. 31 Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the LORD.’ 32 Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the LORD.  (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Je 23:29–32). (2016). Crossway Bibles.)

One of the guiding principles of my ministry has been, I hope still is, "When I confuse thus sayeth Howard, with thus sayeth the Lord, I dilute the word of God." I think it's a good proverb, though I admit it isn't a Biblical proverb, for all preachers/teachers of the Bible to remember.

It's a harder concept to live by than it may at first seem.

 First, let me address the critic in the room. "I know that I don't have the power to alter the word of God. I know and fully believe that not a jot or tittle of God's word will perish. It will accomplish the purpose for which God sent it forth." 

But, like so many things that involve the intersection of God's sovereignty and my/your responsibility, it's complicated. In the Old Testament era, the prophets who spoke for the Lord were responsible to speak what the Lord gave them to speak. A few chapters earlier (Jer. 20), we read of Jeremiah's struggle in delivering the word from the Lord when it was an unpopular word. He was tired. He didn't want to do it anymore, but to paraphrase, he concluded that he couldn't not speak God's word. (To a lesser extent I've been there. On the other side of the coin were those who weren't prophets, or perhaps even prophets who didn't have a message from the Lord at that time. They were responsible to be quiet, or if they did speak to make sure that they did not misrepresent what they said. "This isn't a word from God. This is what I think. I offer it only as personal advice." It takes thought, dedication, and care to keep it straight.

In my case, toward the end of a life ministry, I find it perhaps more complicated than it has ever been to live by my proverb. 

I have, by God's grace, been spared from any great scandal in my life as a pastor and missionary. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues in ministry have set the bar for achieving a position of respect pretty low. I find that now in my sixth decade of ministry, people respect what I say. In particular to my fellow seasoned servants, I say, "We need to be careful with this." It is awfully easy to let it go to my head. The term "pontificate" comes to mind. Especially since I don't believe there is really a "Pontiff," I need to watch for that trap. Yes, I have been around the block a few times, and yes, I have by God's grace learned some things from God's word. Yet, in my most honest days--Lord grant me more--I realize that a lot of what I have learned has to do with how much I don't know. In my own little circle, I have gained a reputation as an honest expositor of the Bible. To change the metaphor from the one in my proverb, that gives me an edge. There are people who trust me. It is important that I not dull that edge by spouting off what I think in a context in which people expect me to be telling them what God has said in His Word.

I find myself using the digital-age shorthand "IMHO" (In my humble opinion) more often lately. There are several tendencies that I observe in my life and in the ministries of others who share God's word that compel me to use this humble acronym:

• Categories are tough to keep straight. Is this actually something that the Word of God says, or is it something that I heard someone say that the Word of God says, or, even more troubling at this point in my life, is it something that I think I remember thinking at some time in the past that the word of God says? Or most troubling of all. Is this what I think needs to be said. I'm not advocating for wishy-washy-ness. I am reminding myself and others to follow the Apostle Paul's counsel to Timothy, "Work hard to show yourself as one who accurately handles the word of truth. Then you won't have anything to be ashamed of." (My application-paraphrase of 2 Timothy 2:15.
• Good preaching is giving people a way to apply the Bible to their lives. The application of the Bible, a book written in a different era in a different culture and place can be tricky. It is very easy to make a way to apply a text of scripture sound like the only way to apply it. In the history of preaching that error has resulted in a lot of homiletical water being added to the soup.
• My Theological grid can get in the way. I suppose I still identify as a dispensationalist. Though my dispensationalism has eroded over the years. I try, however, to give preeminence to, "What does this text mean?" over, "Where does it fit on the chart." Sometimes I fail. I observe the same problem with a different label in the ministries of others who have different Theological orientations. Yes, my Theology informs my exegesis, but if my Theology is sound it comes from proper exegesis of the Bible. "Lord, don't let me stand that on its head.
• On some days it seems everybody but me is so sure of themselves. "Howard, why don't you speak more forcefully? Fake it. Nobody will know. You deserve a place at the table of absolute certainty." It's tempting. My gray hair lends credibility. But, alas, it isn't true.

I'll give Jeremiah the last word. Actually, he was speaking God's word. Concerning those false prophets the Lord said:

“I did not send the prophets, yet they ran;

I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied.

 But if they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people,

and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their deeds.  

(Jeremiah 23:21-22) 

Lord, deliver me. 

 

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."