Monthly Archives: August 2010

Lord Save us From Your Followers

Posted on August 27, 2010 | 4 Comments

“The Church is a whore, and she is my mother.”

No one ever faulted Tony Campolo for mincing words.  The above quote actually comes from St. Augustine, but was repeated by Campolo in the documentary film Lord, Save us From Your Followers.

A few nights ago, I watched Lord Save us from Your Followers with a group from my church.  In the movie, Dan Merchant, the movie’s creator and narrator, travels across the country gathering people’s opinions about Christians and church.  He talks to people on the street, pastors, as well as pundits from both the left and the right.  At times funny and entertaining, it nevertheless is a serious  attempt to get Christians to engage with the world in a more loving and compassionate way.  It’s basically a film version of They Like Jesus but not the Church, or UnChristian.

There were some critiques Dan leveled that I agree with.  First, in one part he pitted  ”young conservatives” vs a group of “liberal media elite” in a Family Feud-like game.  The game was an attempt to see which group knew the beliefs and worldview of the other best.  The liberals won easily.  He then pitted a group of college age agnostics vs a group of college age Christians in the same game.  This time, the Christians didn’t even score a single point.

The outcome was not surprising to me.  In the small group discussion afterwards, a few commented on that part of the movie, saying that we Christians typically know what we believe but aren’t able to get outside our bubbles to engage with the beliefs of outside groups.  I think that commentary was far too kind…most aren’t able to articulate the basics of the gospel without resorting to sloganeering!  This is especially pronounced in youth, where fun, “just hanging out,” and entertainment dominate youth groups.

Second, I can sympathize with his critique of the polarization of political discourse in America.  Lots of heat, very little light.  In an age where ratings drive everything and short attention spans dominate the landscape, the mud slinging is standard fare.  More of a circus act than an informative conversation characterized by mutual respect.
When Dan was focusing on this issue, I thought of a conservative radio show I used to podcast.  The host is a very smart man with a law degree, and he is a big player when it comes to influencing public policy in our country.  I respect the guy greatly, but I confess his radio show always left me disappointed.  For starters, every podcast–and I mean EVERY podcast–featured a controversy that was sure to drastically alter the West for ages to come.  It was as if every little Supreme Court hullabaloo was the beginning of the second coming.  In addition, I was looking to actually be informed, but all the host did–for ONE FULL HOUR–was give “rah-rah” speeches intended to rally the troops.  Very little actual analyzation of the controversy and examination of the detailed arguments of both sides.  If I took the knowledge that I gained from that podcast and used it in a conversation with someone from an opposing view, I’d be out of luck within about 30 seconds.

All that to say: I sympathize with Dan when it comes to being dissatisfied with the nature of political discourse in the U.S.

I also am somewhat sympathetic in his critique of the Church.  We’ve failed to love others as Jesus loves them.  I’ve failed to love others as Jesus loves them.  So tell me something new.

It is at this point, though, where my sympathies end.  I can’t help but think that he has gone too far in his critique.  There *is* a place for legitimate critique and exhortation of the Church, Christians in general, and me as an individual; otherwise, this blog in general and this post in particular would be out of bounds.  We can always do better. 

However, this movie is a small part of a very large trend; it is quite common fare to criticize the church and Christians for being unloving, narrow-minded, and intolerant, etc, etc.  I hear apologies on behalf of Christians from the pulpit quite often.  My pastor is very fond of doing that.  On Facebook and in face to face conversations, my Christian friends will bag on Christians and the Church for being rigid and such.  Books that critique the church–such as the ones mentioned above–are best sellers and the talk of  the town.  We’re frequently wringing our hands about the offense we’ve caused non-believers.

It seems like we just have this urge to self-flagellate and beat ourselves up.  I have to wonder if it is healthy.  Yes, we all need a good butt kickin from time to time, but need we dwell on our *image* so much?

Incidentally, that little word–image–is one reason why I think this trend is potentially unhealthy and askew.  The majority of the focus centers on what others think of us.  A good part of the movie, for instance, was showing the average person’s reaction to the question “what do you think about Christians?”  All the answers were something like “narrow-minded, intolerant, stuffy, judgemental, condemning” etc.  Then the narrator asked them, “what do you think about Jesus?” and the answers were, “loving, forgiving, caring,” etc.  The conclusion we were supposed to reach was obvious.

An aside: to me, those interviews were meaningless.  What if the narrator were to take out the Bible and read from Luke 9: 23-27, Luke 13: 22-30,  or Revelation 19?  Would they have such rosy words for THAT Jesus?  The Jesus they showered such praise on was a Jesus made in their own image, not the Jesus of history and Scripture.

Its as if whenever someone says that about Christians–in other words, whenever someone is *offended* at what we say and do–we’re automatically in the wrong.  Yes, sometimes we are in the wrong, but this seems more of a knee-jerk reaction than anything else to me.  As one author has said, “the gospel is offensive.  Don’t add any offense to it, but don’t remove any offense that is already there.”

There is one scene in the movie where the narrator takes a cue from Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz and sets up a “confession booth” at a gay pride event.  The catch is that those at the event aren’t the ones confessing: Dan himself confesses and apologizes for the wrongs Christians have done to gays and lesbians.  He also apologizes for things he’s done, such as making gay jokes.

It was a novel idea, and it seemed like it got a positive response.  Those watching the movie lauded the act as something incredibly courageous.  I recognize that for some, apologizing comes hard.  Not for everyone, though.  After the event, my wife commented that for her, apologizing would be much, much easier than saying tough, yet loving words that someone might not want to hear.  Why?  The former would most likely gain her the good thoughts of others, whereas the latter might get her rejected. 

I am not saying that it would have been appropriate for Dan to instead get up on a soapbox and read Romans 1.  In that atmosphere, best to leave that one be.  It’s just that I don’t know why everyone acts like moral disapproval, tough words about sin, etc are easy!  Relatively few are going to reject you for doing things like giving out cups of water, saying “Jesus loves you,” and apologizing for past hurts…and those things are all the rage these days.  Not that we shouldn’t do all that, but people like that stuff…they don’t like to hear that the path they have autonomously chosen is the path of destruction and rebellion.  For Christians who want to be well liked (read: most of us), that makes it very tempting to cheer the nice stuff but shun the tough stuff.

I take it that we’re supposed to think that judging and condemning are bad things, and Christians should avoid them.  At one point, Dan chides the church for turning the “gospel of love” into the “gospel of being right.”  Love through your actions and use less words was the not-so-subtle message.  “We’re all out of words,” as one commentator put it.  The ‘ol phrase from St. Francis “preach the gospel at all times; use words when necessary,” was bandied about (incidentally, St. Francis probably never said this.  The guy was an evangelizing, fire-and-brimstone machine.  The American church simply would not tolerate him today.  It is more likely that the quote is a product of a sentimentalized, neutered, postmodern version of St. Francis. ).

The only way this image will improve significantly is if we focus on only grace, at the expense of truth.  As long as Christians stay faithful to the biblical witness and the gospel, the world will continue to think we’re judgmental and all that stuff.  Even if we are completely humble and loving, we can’t stay faithful to Christ and shed that image.  As much as we’d like to forget it, talk of sin, God’s judgment, and condemnation of false beliefs are all over the Bible.  Jesus thought He was right…that kinda comes along with the territory of claiming to be God, and for Christians who faithfully follow Christ, pointing to the “narrow road” also comes with the territory.  Very hard to “Jeffersonize” those things out.  In fact, the gospel doesn’t make sense apart from all that; why would Jesus die a horrendous death on a Roman torture device just to tell us that He loves us and that God has a wonderful plan for our lives?  If there are more ways to God than through Jesus, why did Jesus have to die?  The cross is more than just an example of God’s love; it is an objective cure to an actual spiritual/moral disease called sin.  Take that out and the Christian faith is plain silliness.

Yes.  We can love better (love sometimes requires tough words to be spoken–ever thought of that?  Anyway); but we should just get used to our image being less than what we desire.  A PR campaign will be the cure that kills the patient.

And on that phrase above: “we’re all out of words.”  Really?  Not even close.  Read the book of Acts.  Actions of service are a large part of that book, but do you know what is an even larger part?  Good ‘ol straightforward proclamation.  I sometimes get tired of saying this: it is not an either/or thing, but a both/and.  The Church has excelled in the past on acts of service and proclamation, and we should continue to excel in both.  The siren call of a better image should not sway us. 

It is natural to want to be well-liked.  But lets not let the tail wag the dog here.

And even though I share Dan’s concern with the polarized nature of political discourse, the one thing that is *not* a solution to that is for Christians to back out of the debates.  Though he never said it verbatim, I get the feeling that he’d be ok with us just packing our bags, getting out of politics, and just doing simple service.  Even if I misread him and he would not advocate that sort of response, I know plenty of Christians who would like nothing more than for us to get out of politics completely. 

At the very least, politics and the discourse that comes along with it is seen as a less spiritual enterprise.

I am all for a more civil debate, but silence is not an option, whether it be abortion, embryonic stem cell research, same sex marriage, big government vs. small government, etc, for that would leave others vulnerable to false and harmful ideas.  Those who have opposing ideas will keep on plugging their ideas and policies, and unopposed, those ideas will wreak incredible havoc.

Think of it this way: the last few years have seen the rise of strong and loving Christians entering the legal and political battles in foreign countries on efforts such as sex trafficking and child abuse.    Many have fought tirelessly in courts and legislatures to ensure vulnerable women and children are protected by law.  These legal and political battles can sometimes be nasty and intense.  Would we even think about advising these folks to back away from political discourse and simply “love others with actions?”  The thought is crazy, for we recognize the stakes. 

It is no different here.

I frequently bring up these themes on this blog.  I really don’t want to be that guy.  It’s just that this “either/or” message gets preached a lot, and people simply eat it up.  Every time I hear the so-called St. Francis quote said in church, it is followed by so many “mmmms,” and “amens.”  We don’t really have to put one or the other (words/actions without words) on the backburner…nor should we, biblically. I’m attempting to bring some balance to the discussion.  I heartily applaud Merchant’s exhortation to talk with non-believers, not at them, but we should be careful that we don’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and let the pendulum swing to the opposite end.  There is room for both grace and truth, and love sometimes means risking rejection by saying tough….words.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,

Clarification

Posted on August 25, 2010 | 2 Comments

A few folks commented on my last post both inside and outside the blog, and I feel a clarification is in order.  I recognize that not everyone wants to have spiritual conversations with folks they don’t know. My point in the post was that Christians should not make a hard and fast rule the other way: assuming that you *always* have to build a relationship first, so you miss opportunities to enrich another’s life because you are stuck with a prior agenda (namely, “always build relationship first before talking about Christ.”).

Building relationships are great. Necessary. But not always. In the post, I was trying to get people to realize its not an either/or. Some are open to conversations without prior relationship, some not. Now, for Christians, what’s the worst that could happen?  They reject you.  That’s it. If I broach the subject with someone I don’t really know and they don’t want to talk (read body language, their initial response, etc), I move on. No reason to bug ‘em.

Keep in mind the ultimate motivation:  the gospel isn’t a mere choice along a smorgasboard of others that we choose according to our liking or felt need.  The message of Christ is true, in the fullest, objective sense of the word.  Everyone, regardless of economic status, belief, race, etc, will find themselves under the gavel of God’s justice one day because everyone has rebelled.  As C.S Lewis once put it, we are all “rebels in arms” against God.  God, in His mercy, has given us the opportunity for clemency, but since He’s the one we’ve offended, forgiveness is on His terms, not ours, and His terms are forgiveness through Christ.  This is true regardless of what anyone feels or desires, and if we love others, we’ll tell them this and give them the opportunity to turn.

If I had diabetes and a doctor, who knew it, had the opportunity to inform me and failed to do so, I would consider him negligent and unprofessional.  The same principle is at play here.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Relationship Building

Posted on August 18, 2010 | 2 Comments

This British guy gave a sermon at my church the other day…forget his name, but his accent alone gave him far more authority than almost anyone who has occupied that pulpit on a given Sunday.  I don’t know why, but all you need to be able to sell a manure sandwich is a British accent.  In that event, I’ll buy it off you, no questions asked.

All kidding aside, it really was a wonderful sermon, for the most part.  The whole thing was an encouragement to get us to take better advantage of the opportunities we get to share Christ more with non-Christians.  That subject is very near and dear to my heart, for a lot of what we get from secular society, and sadly, other pastors and other Christians, amounts to an excuse to keep the light under a bushel.  Seems like we rarely talk about sharing Christ these days, preferring to focus on more popular and sexier subjects, like…well…sex. 

Not that the latter subject shouldn’t be talked about, not that we are past that–our culture makes it necessary that such a subject be addressed aggressively and often–it’s just that if you were to go by the amount of time a particular topic gets addressed, you’d think that having great sex is a more central Bible message than sharing Christ’s salvation with the lost.  This particular sermon, therefore, was quite welcome.

His points were great, two of which I especially remember: most of the best opportunities (to share one’s faith) come as unwelcome interruptions, and most of the best opportunities come once you’ve won the right to be heard.  Yes.  I’ve let quite a few opportunities slip by myself because they were “unwelcome interruptions” to my agenda.  The opportunity didn’t fit my feelings and desires (ie, I didn’t feel like sharing at the time), so I let it slip by.  And: if you don’t walk the walk, as they say, you will get zero opportunities, and make great effort to really “get into people’s lives,” taking a genuine interest in them, rather than just keeping to yourself all the time…that was the jist of the second point.

At this point, however, I do need to interject a bit.  The problem with that last point isn’t that it’s somehow unbiblical or false…it’s that many soft American churchgoers will subtly turn it against the first point, making it into an excuse to let many opportunities pass them by. 

I see this happen all the time, and I hear people recommend this way of thinking a lot: when an opportunity arises, many folks let it pass by in the name of “building a relationship first” with that person.  Many more also fail to create opportunities themselves (that *is* a biblical thing to do, by the way…read Acts.  Many of those episodes were at the disciples’ initiative.), thinking they always have to get to know somebody extensively first.

When has enough “relationship building” taken place, anyway?  A few months?  A year?  Five, ten years?  I’ve seen instances before where the “needed” amount is always and forever on the horizon, just a little ways away.  “Not wise to share with my friend just yet.  Yes, I’ve known him since childhood, but I still need to ‘build a relationship’ with him so I can ‘win the right to be heard.’”

I’ve seen other instances where a person is building a relationship with a friend/coworker/whatever, and said friend/coworker moves out of the Christian’s life, without the Christian ever taking a step to share.  He was so focused on building the relationship in order to avoid rejection, that he never actually got around to sharing.  The “relationship building” got in the way of a great opportunity.

I just gotta call it: this whole “building relationship first” thing is, too many times, an excuse.  Our agenda is to avoid rejection, so when an opportunity arises to share that might potentially get in the way of that agenda (notice I said “potentially.”  Many times it is an unfounded fear), we baptize our agenda in spiritual language and biblical concepts in order to avoid exposing ourselves to risk.  A legitimate principle, that of living in such a way so as to not damage your witness, gets turned into an excuse.

So I’ll just say it: you don’t always have to “build relationship” for some vague, undefined time first before speaking of Christ.  If you get the opportunity, just take it.  And don’t be afraid to take the initiative and broach the subject yourself either.  Yes, here and there you might need to be quiet…but, I dare say that those instances are far fewer in number than we make them out to be.

Once, when someone asked him about building relationships with non-believers first, I heard a fellow evangelist say “oh yes, I’m all about building relationship.  Sometimes, when I’m in the waiting room at the doctor’s office, I build a relationship for up to a *full minute* before sharing with someone.”

I think he’s got the right idea.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

Same Sex Marriage Discussions on Facebook, Part II

Posted on August 8, 2010 | 3 Comments

Read Part I here.

*Rhetoric is winning the day.  Both Christians and non-Christians supported same sex marriage, and employed a healthy dose of rhetoric and buzz words heavily laden with emotional meaning to assert their views.  Most, though not all, hadn’t a clue what those buzzwords meant.

*”You’re advocating discrimination!”  Not in that sense, no.  It’s the same discrimination made towards polygamy, polyamory, polyandry or any other relationship that doesn’t serve a social purpose as effectively as a marriage with one mother and father.  Prop 8 draws distinctions among different types of relationships–same as when the law refuses to put two college roomies living together on par with a married man and woman, but it does not discriminate towards individuals.

*”You’re denying gays and lesbians equality and fairness.  You’ve got the right to marry and they don’t.”  Actually, gays and lesbian individuals have the exact same rights as I.  Any gay man can marry any woman of any race that consents and is of the minimum age, and the same is the case with me.  What ssm advocates are pressing for is the elimination of the gender requirement and the wholesale changing of the meaning of marriage.   At bottom, the principle behind all this is the notion that marriage is a mere social construction, that anyone can define a family any way he chooses, with government/societal approval.  Nature no longer defines the institution, it is subject to whim.  When this idea takes root, there will be plenty of negative consequences.

I realize this might not hit you square between the eyes, so let me elaborate by quoting Greg Koukl:

“Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That‚s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.” No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.  The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”

*Many mentioned “love” as a reason why they support same sex marriage.  In other words, we should love and accept gays and lesbians, showing compassion for them.  I agree fully with that.  My discussion partners carried that on further, however, suggesting that means lending support for same sex marriage.   My question: does “love” mean you must support and accept everything the beloved does or desires?  I’m glad my parents, friends, and co-workers don’t think so.  Whenever I do something that is morally wrong, harmful to myself, or harmful to others, many voices step in to voice loving opposition.  A few friends knocked some sense into me during my college days when I chased around a few girls that were bad news.  This is common sense to most of us, but why does this ethic suddenly fly the coup when it comes to homosexual behavior?  It is this lifestyle and behavior which same-sex marriage legitimizes by government fiat (it does other destructive things too).  Most ssm advocates will admit this, that its not about benefits and such: it is about social acceptance of homosexual relationships.  SSM places homosexual relationships on par with heterosexual ones, and this is what they’re after.

*Now, I know many earnestly desire such acceptance.  Even if I conceded that it social acceptance of homosexual relationships is a thing to be desired, why think it’s a “right”?

*How does same sex marriage harm others and society?  How do legitimizing homosexual relationships do so?  Many have misconstrued this issue by making it an individual thing.  They’ve asked, incredulously, “Rich, how does the homosexual couple next door hurt you at all?”  The answer is that it doesn’t, but that’s not the issue. 

Ideas have consequences. Let’s start there. The ideas of the “sexual revolution” of the 60′s, for instance, have wreaked havoc on society. Ask anyone who grew up in a divorced home how those ideas have affected them. Yes, the bedroom …activity of the couple next door might not affect *me* as an individual, but we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about ideas and morality enforced through public policy.  The striking down of Prop 8, by the way, was an enforcement of certain ideas and morality regarding marriage. We conservatives aren’t the only ones seeking to enforce ideas and morality through law.

Cars are designed for a purpose, with certain specifications of use. If I piss in the gas tank or drive it on the bottom of a lake (if I use it against its design, in other words), its going to break down. Likewise, humans are designed too. This design shows itself on every plane: physical, emotional, relational, sexual, etc. If someone behaves in a way that cuts against that design, problems happen. If I drink myself into a stupor every weekend, my liver is gonna shrivel to the size of a rasin. And so on. When it comes to homosexual behavior, this is easiest to see on the physical plane (no anatomy lesson needed), but you can see it on the other planes too: relationally, men and women fit like “hand in glove.” There is something that each gender possesses that the other lacks.  It’s not just that they’re merely “different,” but complimentary.  And it’s not a mere personality or feelings issue either, as in “my friend and I really get along well,” or “my romantic partner and I ‘click.’  I feel alive when we’re together!” but a deeper, more fundamental nature thing…anyone, religious or none, can see this.

For more specifics, some chapters in the books Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexual Debate* has some.

*Children need and deserve a relationship with both his/her mom and dad.  The optimal family structure for a child’s well being is one in which a mom and a dad are present.  I reckognize, of course, that not every kid gets this.  Some come from single parent homes, and it is not always due to that single parent.  In these situations, we do all we can to care and support that parent and the child.  Some children from these homes turn out allright afterall, oftentimes due to the heroic efforts of the single parent or a close mentor.  For some, one parent is abusive, and its better to be away from that adult.  Whatever the situation, though, very few would go on to balk at the general principle above, and few would suggest that those family structures are just as preferrable to those with a mother and father. 

There is a boat load of research backing this up (see the footnotes), but you don’t need to pour over studies to see that.  Experience confirms it as well.  When I worked as a teacher in an inner city school, if I had a dollar for every tired and haggard single mom that came through my classroom door dragging an out of control teenage boy with her, no father in sight, I coulda retired a while back.  If I were a bettin’ man, I’d bet she’d prefer to have a father in the picture.

Legalizing same sex marriage scoffs at the principle by asserting that there’s no real benefit to having both a mother and a father in the home.  Everything jr gets from dad he can get from another mom, and everything jr gets from mom he can get from another man.  We really should pause and ponder before we embrace that idea.

*Question for those who advocate for same sex marriage: do you really believe that men and women are completely interchangeable as parents?

*I also reckognize that not every marriage has children in it.  Some earnestly desire to conceive, but for some reason can’t, while others remain childless by choice for one reason or another.  If I may use a humorous illustration: not everyone uses ash trays for ashes…some use them for food.  Just because some use an ash tray as a food container, though, doesn’t negate its intended use…in the same manner, just because some marriages don’t have children doesn’t mean that bonding mother and father to child and mother and father to each other is not an essential purpose of marriage.  Exceptions don’t trump the general principle.

*A few in the discussions brought up our racial past, seeking to make a connection.  You know, the ‘ol “they said the same thing about interracial marriage way back when.”  There’s one huge difference here: race is incidental to marriage, but gender is essential to it.   There are no significant differences to differing races that matter to marriage.  Just look at it biologically: men of any race and women of any race have the plumbing to “get the job done.”  A white man can mate with a black woman and produce a healthy child.  There are enormous differences between the genders, though, that matter tremendously to marriage and raising children.  Again, think of it biologically.  As I’ve already mentioned, the same applies when it comes to raising children.  The genders are complimentary.

Dennis Prager puts it nicely:

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.

Frank Beckwith elaborates more on the legal side why the analogy fails.

*At this point I should probably mention the recent studies that purported to show that kids do as well with same sex parents as they do with opposite sex parents, because someone mentioned those studies.  When I asked her for details, she failed to provide any, preferring instead to ridicule.  There are two that I’m aware of.  One comes from the United States National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study and the other is a summary of studies by Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz.

Both have been subject to much criticism. For the first, the sample size was quite small–78 children born to lesbian couples, plus a control group.  In addition, the lesbian couples were not randomly sampled, but instead recruited from lesbian and gay groups/communities.  It might be tough to get a random sample for a study like this, but the mere fact that they were non-randomly selected volunteers biases the results.

Furthermore, ethnicity and region of residence differs between the groups too.  There were many more minorities and those from the South in the control group.  As much as we might not like to admit it, that skews the results too.  Finally, the study made heavy, though not exclusive, use of self-reporting from the lesbian mothers.

As to the second, the authors actually end up saying that women are better: two women are better than a man and a woman.  In other words, totally get rid of dad, because he is disposable.  This is far different from saying the gender of parents doesn’t matter (which is controversial enough).  Here are a few quotes:

“Two women who choose to parent together provide a ‘double dose of middle-class feminine approach to parenting.’”

“Women parenting without men scored higher on warmth and quality of interactions with their children than not only fathers, but also mothers who coparent with husbands.”

“If contemporary mothering and fathering seem to be converging,… research shows that sizable average differences remain that consistently favor women, inside or outside of marriage.”

 

(HT: Jennifer Roback-Morse)

This should give us great, great pause in jumping on the Stacey-Biblarz bandwagon.  We ought not blithely throw these studies around gleefully. The idea that fathers really aren’t needed, for one, has been tried on extensively in the inner cities and found wanting. More is found here.

At some point, dissenters usually respond by saying, “well, I was raised by only my mom, and I turned out ok.”  I’m glad, and many single parents deserve a huge pat on the back and much support, but it is odd that when we are talking about general societal trends, people’s first response is to turn it a) individual (*I* turned out ok), and b) feelings focused (I didn’t *feel* a difference).  We’re so individualistic that that is our knee jerk reaction. 

Remember, I nor anyone else is saying that any and all kids raised by some arrangement other than a mother and father will 100% turn out “bad” or that you as an individual are ”messed up.”  I don’t know your situation individually.  I just know the trends and I know the human design I see in nature.  What I am saying is that there is a huge trend in society that shows moms and dads matter.  Statistically and generally experientially, it affects children.  Check out the links I provided, and think back to my illustration with the inner city.  Sure, in my time as a teacher there, I met plenty of well-adjusted kids raised by single parents, or in some cases, same-gender parents.  But those were dwarfed by the numbers the other way.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Same Sex Marriage Discussions on Facebook, part I

Posted on August 8, 2010 | 1 Comment

I recently participated in a few discussions on Facebook regarding Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Proposition 8.  Here are some reflections on those discussions:

*As weird as it sounds, I originally jumped in because I didn’t really want to.  A friend of mine recently told me that, “if you want to grow, you must put yourself in increasingly uncomfortable situations.”  I didn’t want to get involved in these discussions because I admit I was a bit intimidated.  Advocating the biblical point of view when it comes to homosexuality and/or same sex marriage, or many times even asking challenging questions of those who approve of homosexual behavior/relationships,  gets mental daggers and verbal rocks thrown your way.  I don’t like that any more than the next soft-skinned, comfortable American.  I realized my feelings on the matter, and jumped right in.

Most of the people, though, were pretty respectful.  There were only a few who spewed vitriol.   Not too bad.  When folks do that–when they play the ‘ol “you’re ignorant/bigoted/hateful/unloving/judgemental/ugly” card–they need to be called out.   Far too often, conservatives and Christians allow themselves to be bullied around by that sort of tactic.  We somehow think we have something to apologize about in those situations.  The Church has plenty to apologize about, but name calling isn’t an indication of that.  People do that so much because it works…it often culls people into silence.

So time to speak up and call a spade a spade.  “Calling out” is what I did.   Name calling is not an argument…it’s a verbal temper-tantrum because someone disagrees with you, and that’s it.  Saying I’m wrong is fine.  Critiquing my view with toughness is fair game.  But leaninig on the faithful “you’re ignorant!” response shows that you’ve got nuthin.

*This would be a great time for churches to step up and educate their flocks on both the biblical view of marriage in general, the biblical view of homosexual behavior, the public welfare arguments against same sex marriage, and how to advocate for those in a compassionate manner. This is an awesome opportunity for churches to inform and equip, but my hunch is that it won’t happen. Most will sit by and let other outlets woo with rhetoric. Most won’t go near the topic and will stay silent. There are some apologetic organizations out there doing a stellar job on this front, but few churches, though that’s just a hunch.  As much as I hate to bag on the church (it is a favorite pass time of Christians and non-Christians alike.  Very common for Christians to bash the Church and apologize incessantly, much more rare to encourage and spur it on.), I just gotta say it.

*Many have misunderstood the role religion has played in this, and have also misunderstood the legitimacy of relgion in this debate. First, I, and others, are completely within our bounds to let our views be informed by the Bible or any other holy book, and we are completely within our First Amendment rights in having our voting convictions informed by such Scriptures. This happens all the time with more liberal views, in fact, with virtually no one raising an eye brow. How many times have I seen religious people reference the Scriptures and/or make religiously motivated appeals for health care reform (Obama himself did it!), outlawing capital punishment, offering contraceptives in schools, and, yes, the legalization of same sex marriage? Answer: often, but no one, and I mean no one, cries foul because they violate the Establishment Clause or because they are religious in nature. The debates in those instances are on the merits of the appeals themselves (“does the Bible really call for the outlawing of capital punishment?” for instance), which is right where those debates should be…and it shouldn’t change here regarding Scriptural and religious references against same sex marriage.

A Muslim should be able to vote his conscience. A Hindu should be able to do the same. Ditto with an atheist, the secularist, and, dare I say, the Christian. All are fully within their citizenly rights to vote according to their convictions and worldview.  Having a religious “agenda” doesn’t disqualify someone from participating in politics.  The First Amendment guarantees it, not outlaws it.  If Joe from your local GLBTQ organization wants to address a Metropolitan Church congregation and talk to them about “Same sex marriage and the Bible” to get them to agree with him, more power to him. James from Focus on the Family should be able to do the same when it comes to lobbying the faithful for his point of view. One will be incredibly, horribly mistaken about his case, but not because he references religion in his appeal.

No one should have to shed their worldview and act/vote as a secularist, though I have the inckling that is what Christians are being asked to do, and no arguments should be swept off the playing field because they either comport with Scripture or come from religious people/organizations, though that is what’s happening here. Otherwise, laws against murder, theft, white collar crime (Jim Wallis, anyone?), perjury, and a host of other laws would be suspect.

I do admit, however, that there is a difference between being religiously motivated/allowing Scripture to inform beliefs, and making an argument in the public square of ideas about public policy. If I show up in the California legislature and argue against same sex marriage by opening up to Romans or 1 Corinthians, that is not gonna fly. In that sphere, I must make arguments (and there is a distinction between arguments and motivations, I hope you can see that) based on the public welfare, common morality, and nature, since people from a wide array of backgrounds find common ground with those things.

When it comes to this, folks on both sides of the debate somehow think that the only arguments against same sex marriage are religious in nature. The best arguments do not make reference to Scriptures, though they comport with them. I’ve made such arguments frequently and have seen others make them in the public square, but people just act like they don’t exist. Mostly they are dismissed, twisted into being religious, or ignored completely.

An aside: you can legislate morality, btw. Though Judge Walker scoffed at that, his own decision shows he tried. Legalizing ssm legislates a certain moral point of view.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,

Can I Buy a Non-Sequitur?

Posted on August 3, 2010 | Leave a comment

 

I’ll believe in God etc one day when I’m certain I’m strong enough to do good in the world without them. Until then I will try to contribute to a higher good before taking solace in the symbols and prosey words that one religion has assigned it.

 

A Facebook friend attributed this to Pat Sajak.  I have no idea if Sajak actually said it, but I’m gonna roll with it.

Folks, this is what we call a non-sequitur…at least the first part.  His inability to do good apart from God (or apart from believing in God) is a good reason for rejecting the existence of God?  How does that follow?  At best, it’s a lame excuse.

It’s kind of like me saying, “I’ll believe in farmers when my stomach is big enough such that I can eat a 100 oz. steak in one sitting.”

On the second half of the quote, here was my response to my friend: Sajak spoke of a “higher good.” If God doesn’t really exist, and He’s just a cultural projection or something of the sort, the “higher good” turns out to be the herd instinct. That’s not very…high. In other words, in a world without a real supernatural God, what we *call* good is nothing of the moral sort: its merely behavior that has helped us survive up untl the present as a species…that’s not “good” in any moral sense, its just survival.
In my mind, if Sajak’s attitude is the way to go, we’re all shuffling chairs on the Titanic. He can behave in a way he calls “good” without believing in any specific religion (people do it all the time), but his beliefs won’t cohere with his actions….to continue with the above analogy on farming, it’s kinda like a suburbanite sitting down to a meal of eggs and bacon who doesn’t believe in the existence of farming.

I know, I know: don’t expect a game show host to follow logic in spiritual and philosophical things.  People on Facebook were giving “amens” left and right on it, though, so I just gotta say, you know?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,