What's Love Got To Do With It?

I have mentioned Michael Harper’s book, The Love Affair, in previous posts. I was so impressed by what he had to say in the eleventh chapter, “Love or Money,” that I am going to excerpt it here at some length. The responsibility of believers regarding wealth and poverty is of continual interest, and I have opined here on more than one occasion with reference to the immigrant situation. Many believers seem to confuse their Christian duty with the role of government. Harper makes a thoughtful distinction between the two spheres in the following selection:

“We need to look so at love as it relates to politics. Democracy and the politics which goes with it are not doing very well at the present time. One of the main reasons for this is that government can only be sure of getting into power by promising popular policies. People will not necessarily vote for right policies, but they will invariably vote for popular policies. But the more radically society gets into trouble, the more radical the remedies need to b e, and that means either that the wrong party gets into power, or the party which can somehow cleverly sugar the pill so that the unpopular policies are disguised. It has become axiomatic in most democracies that politicians are dishonest; they cannot be trusted by the electorate. Thus democracy increasingly gets a bad name for itself.

“All ideologies share the same fate. They invariably fail to deliver the goods. They start off with initial enthusiasm. They are prepared to put up with much suffering and inconvenience to achieve their ideals. But they all end up in various forms of disillusionment. Communism itself has failed to construct the Utopian society. Socialism has degenerated into small-mindedness. It has fallen from its lofty ideals (many stemming from Christian convictions). It has become a soul-less exercise, a device for spreading greed more equitably….

“For many of the great Christian reformers, the normal democratic processes were the proper sphere in which their ideals could be implemented. In this they were right. But those were the days before the universal franchise which characterizes our modern democracies. In a sense we need to rise above party politics. Hans Kung writes about the need to be ‘neither right nor left’ nor to mediate between the two, but rather to ‘rise above them; above all the alternatives, all of which Christ plucks up from the roots. This is his radicalism: the radicalism of love which in its blunt realism is fundamentally different from the radicalism of an ideology…. ‘

“Basically Christianity is not an ideology. Jesus did not come to present a new set of ideas to us. He came to show us the meaning of love. The secret of his revolution was not the love of power but the power of love. Neither violence nor politics can bring in the Kingdom of God. One is not saying that Christians should not get involved in politics nor join the armed forces. On the contrary Christians should become deeply committed to and involved in society. The salt is not doing its job when it is in the salt-cellar, but when it’s in the food….

“Sir Fredrick Catherwood has said, ‘To try to improve society is not worldliness but love. To wash your hands of society is not love but worldliness.’ One of our most important tasks is to re-introduce the dynamic of the love of God into our society, from which it has been largely separated for hundreds of years. But it must be Agape love. Only that kind of love can work in our society, and its source is in God himself.”

Debating "Christian Cleavage"

An eye-catching headline floated across my Facebook wall yesterday containing the words “Christian Cleavage.” Curiosity compelled me to investigate. One definition of the word “cleavage” suggested it might have been about church splits. It was not; rather it was the title of a blog about standards of modesty in women’s apparel, as I originally suspected. Since that is a subject that has drawn my attention in the past (pardon the double entendre), I linked to the original post and read it with interest initially, then with disappointment. The blog writer, Jayson D. Bradley, took it upon himself to apologize for what he considered to be generations of misguided teaching about the need for modesty in women’s apparel.

Bradley disagreed with the idea often advanced that because males are visually stimulated, it is incumbent upon women to avoid dressing in a way that might “stimulate.” This has been the accepted wisdom since the introduction of the fig leaves as coverings after the Fall in the Garden of Eden. Bradley suggests that it is unfair to place the responsibility for a man’s sin on any random woman he happens to gaze upon. Several female respondents to his blog thanked him for relieving them of this onerous accountability issue.

One female responded differently; she reminded Bradley that even he mentioned that all believers are admonished to avoid placing a stumbling block in another’s path. She argued that dressing in an alluring way represented an example of that kind of behavior. Bradley responded to her saying, “I am ALL for modesty. I am not for men deciding for you what your convictions should be based upon their proclivities.” This statement betrays a fundamental lack of understanding what modesty means. The Greek word the Bible uses when admonishing women to dress “modestly” is cosmion from cosmos which implies order versus chaos. Women should not dress in a way which creates chaos in men who see them. This standard may change somewhat from culture to culture and time to time, but pretty much every honest interpreter can see that certain modes of fashion are not modest in the sense that they do cause chaos.

One of the ways the Greek word cosmion has come into English is “cosmopolitan.” It is ironic what cosmopolitan has come to mean in popular culture as represented by the magazine by the same name. Women who do wish to attract men know exactly how to dress to accomplish their goal; if they have any doubts, Cosmo will clear them up. It seems disingenuous for modern women to say that attire is not a factor in how they are perceived, or that they are not at least partly responsible for perpetuating the blatant eroticism of our culture.

It seems that Bradley is missing something that is obvious to me. Even in our admittedly licentious culture, the excessively short skirt, the excessively tight top, the excessively deep plunge of the neckline is considered alluring. A woman who is not advertising should not dress to excess. There is almost no good thing under Heaven that cannot be abused by going to excess.

Curiously, the word modesty is in the same family as moderation. The Bible teaches that eating, drinking, working, playing, and yes, dressing must all be done with moderation in mind. Perhaps it would help if a woman were to ask if her attire is moderate in its exposure. This cannot simply mean saying, “I’m not as bad as her,” pointing to the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine. It is not good enough to be just a little less wrong than the culture, it is necessary to be at least a little more right than the culture. So, I beg to differ with Jayson Bradley: it is a Christian woman’s responsibility to maintain Biblical modesty.

The Sad Anniversary

If one seeks the silver lining in the dark cloud that is abortion in the US, it might be the fact that over fifty million souls have been added to the rolls of Heaven since this date in 1973. That’s my take on it theologically; I believe human life begins at conception, and I believe innocent children are ushered immediately into God’s presence when they are taken from earth. I know it’s a stretch to find anything good resulting from the holocaust that Roe v. Wade initiated, but it is something.

What really puzzles me is how the same people who shed tears over baby seals being slaughtered or polar bears suffering due to global warming can blithely advocate for the “right” of a woman to end the existence of a living being that cannot become anything but a human being if natural processes are allowed to continue. Even if we agree to disagree about when human life begins, and if we accept for purposes of argument that all sentient creatures are equal, that would seem to place the fetus in a category worthy of protection? Apparently not. I like Ronald Reagan’s comment: “Everybody who is for abortion has already been born.”

Then there is the more direct parallel between what many abortion advocates think about situations where “terrorists” slaughter innocents and the wholesale slaughter of unborn infants by abortion. The number of deaths by abortion would dwarf the number of people killed by Al qaeda and ISIL and Boko Haram combined. Not even Hitler and Stalin together killed more innocents than abortion has since 1973. I know abortion advocates would not accept my parallel since they have convinced themselves that a fetus is not a human being. That is nothing but a mind-trick they play on themselves. For some it soothes their conscience.

For others, not so much. This crowd has closed their eyes to the millions of women who have followed their encouragement to have an abortion of choice, and who afterward struggle mightily with emotional and psychological trauma. Or consider the women’s rights lobby that decries the treatment of women under various harsh regimes around the world, yet fails to consider that the basic right of life has been denied to twenty to thirty million fetuses that would have become women had abortion not been so prevalent here at home.

I shudder when I read of the ancient Israelites abandoning Jehovah for the worship of the Phoenician god, Molech, which included infant sacrifice as part of the ceremonial rights. What god have fifty million women bowed to in the last four decades since Roe v. Wade opened the door to abortion access in the US? Many of the pro-abortion arguments end up being about convenience. Ultimately the rationale sounds eerily similar to the motivation for sacrificing a child to Molech to “ensure financial prosperity for the family and future children.” We moderns may not be as different from the ancients as we presume.

OMG! It's Me

Consider the following:

1.     Early in my career I was a school administrator and teacher in private Christian schools; there were three different school boards who, for different reasons, declined to renew my contract for the coming year. That is not quite the same thing as being fired, but it is a distinction without a difference.

2.    I have a sister who has not spoken to me since just after my Mom died many years ago. We were both surprised to learn that the estate was not going to provide an inheritance for any of us siblings; in fact, the liabilities exceeded the assets. My sister believed that I was responsible for the situation, although it was subsequently demonstrated that I had little to do with it. Regardless, we do not communicate.

3.      I learned a couple years ago that my wife had not been fully forthcoming during the first few decades of our relationship because she did not feel comfortable doing so. Counseling led her to honestly reveal her reticence to speak her mind to me.

4.    About the same time that my wife made the above admission, one of my daughters let it be known that as a child, she had been afraid (her word) to speak to me about some things for fear of my reaction.

5.   There is a man whom I highly respect who has refused to communicate with me for the last several years because of some regrettable things I said which hurt him deeply. So far, my attempts to ask forgiveness have only made the situation worse.

What is the common element in all these situations? Me. I can add that in every situation I would have said at the time that I was misunderstood in something I said or did by the other parties to the affair. The irony has not escaped me that my chosen profession requires that I exhibit skill as a communicator. It is also ironic that many people have pointed out that I do not hide my inner thoughts well, in fact, it has been said more than once that I can usually be read like a book.

I have known for some time now that my relationships with others have often been devoid of compassion or understanding. My excuse is that I did not learn compassion in my youth. Narcissism, egoism, arrogance… these I learned well, but compassion was not in my repertoire. Sadly, recognizing my shortcomings has not rectified my relational difficulties. I would like to say that this is because people presume I am that same old arrogant something-or-other I have always been. The truth may be that my behavior still reinforces the stereotype I have spent years forming in people’s minds.

The question that plagues me at this moment is when do I earn the so-called benefit of the doubt. What must I do to prove I am not the person I once was? Will anyone ever believe that I don’t want to be the person I used to be? … that I am trying to be different… better? The WHAMM in this is more for me than any of my readers, but there is a broader application. Is there anyone who is not “under construction” to one degree or another? Doesn’t Jesus show us that the love He commands is to be given with the understanding that the recipient is seldom (never) perfect?

I want to make it clear that I am not asking for sympathy here. I am stating the obvious fact that I bear significant responsibility for the troubles I have mentioned (and doubtless many more that I don't even know about). Kay and Milan Yerkovitch in How We Love anchor their relationship advice in the necessity of each of us understanding (as much as possible) the other's relational struggles. They recommend giving a lot of leeway to people because we are all flawed people raised by flawed people. That can be traced all the way back to Adam. And didn't Jesus make some pretty hefty allowances for personal foibles in those he ministered to? Think of the adulterous woman or Zacchaeus, the Samaritan woman or Peter. You will never meet a perfect person here on earth. By the time you do meet One, it will be too late to do anything about how you deal with imperfect people here.

2 Samuel 21

Once upon a time there was a king named Barak of Bamah. It came to pass after some years of king’s reign that famine struck the districts of Walstret so that they did not produce their annual yield and the commerce of the land began to wither and men could not find gainful employment. The king consulted his wise counselors, Valrie of Jaret, William of Ayres and Axel of Rod seeking to know what should be done to bring prosperity to his kingdom. They advised a sacrifice of three men to their god, Almighty Marx.

So the king went to de Troit and chose three men of renown and slew them and took their lands and properties and gave them to the Almighty Marx. Unfortunately, the gods still did not smile on the king. Commerce continued to wither and more and more men were without jobs to feed their families. The king and his paeans cried out to the one man in one hundred who had more than enough and demanded that he give all he had to feed the poor, but still there was not enough.

In desperation the king went to his enemies and borrowed huge sums from them after promising to beat all the swords in his realm into salad forks. However, the borrowed money was not enough to feed the hungry, and the tribute demanded by the enemies further weakened the commerce of the land. Disappointed that the counsel of his wise men did not bring prosperity, the king traveled often to the islands of the fiery mountain and cast the dimpled ball to know what to do. Even though the dimpled ball was struck with the king’s scepter many times, the king was none the wiser.

Meanwhile a plain woman who cared had taken the bodies of the men of de Troit whom the king had slain and threw her red cloak over them to shield the bodies. Eventually more and more people of the realm came to appreciate what the woman was doing and they began wearing red cloaks to show solidarity with her. The king tried to woo the people with offers of free health care and free schooling and free ice cream, but the doctors all refused to give free care and the teachers demanded pay for their schooling and the ice cream melted before it could be delivered.

After six years of his ruinous reign, the people finally stood up to King Barak and said they wanted to hear no more of his disastrous proclamations. The king responded by making even more outlandish proclamations, opening the jails, opening the borders and opening his own cloak factory to make blue cloaks for his people. Unfortunately, since all the textile works in the realm had closed due to the king’s policies, he was forced to have the cloaks woven by his enemies. They tricked him into using a special material they said was invisible to all but the smartest people. Soon all the smart people in the land were wearing the invisible blue cloaks.

The king was so confident that the smart people outnumbered the people in red cloaks, he ordered a census, declaring that the land would be ruled by the group which turned in the largest number of cloaks. A dispute arose concerning which color made the highest pile, the smart people insisting their blue cloaks far outreached the red cloaks. A child who was tired of hearing all the adults arguing suggested they weigh the two piles of cloaks to see which was heavier. This suggestion pleased all the people.

The red cloaks were placed on the right side of the balance and it settled to the ground under the ponderous weight. The smart people began to pile their cloaks on the left side of the balance, but regardless of how many they threw on the scale, the right side never moved. The king and all the smart people were so distraught they turned pale as the dead, so they all put on rouge to look more alive. Soon the king was forced to relinquish his crown, and he and all the smart people moved to France because everyone knows that the colors of France are bleu, blanc et rouge.

Holy War

One thing was surprisingly absent from the news during the past holiday season: the war on Christmas. The previous few years seem to have been dominated by stories about merchants or manufacturers or municipalities who banned Christmas imagery and even the phrase, “Merry Christmas” from their premises. Perhaps I was sleeping, but I missed that this year. I love a good argument about freedom of speech and religious expression during the celebration of the birth of the Savior. It makes a great platform to announce the reason for the season. (Note tongue in cheek.)

But while our “culture war,” as Bill O'Reilly likes to call it, may be in remission, the tragic events in Paris today bring to mind how important it is to understand that some religious fanatics really do practice war on those who don’t follow the tenets of their religion. The murders at Charlie Hedbo remind the sensitive world-watcher that killing in the name of one’s god is not some Medieval aberration, but rather a present reality.

Although there were those who attempted to downplay the religious motivations of the 9/11 attackers, that day woke clear thinkers to the fact that war has been declared and it is religious in nature. The real truth is that 9/11 was far from the first salvo fired by the radical proponents of Islam against their “Great Satan,” the United States. The World Trade Center had previously been attacked, mostly unsuccessfully, back in 1993. The African embassy bombings (1998) and the USS Cole (October 2000) were also evident tokens of the war few people recognized.

On one hand, I am in awe of the total commitment displayed by the Islamic radicals. I can almost respect it. Although their tactics are deplorable to civilized society, their commitment is laudable. If only more Christians were so totally committed to their faith. I am not suggesting that armed Christians spray the Grand Haven city council with bullets in protest of the decision to disguise the cross on Dewey Hill. When Jesus said that after He left, His disciples might want to strap on a sword, I don’t think that is what He meant. (The complete discussion of His intent is the subject of another post.)

What is clear is that too many believers sit motionless when radicals with different beliefs assault their traditions and institutions. I don’t doubt that if half the citizens of Grand Haven who find no offense in a cross on Dewey Hill had stood up, the cross would still stand. Apathy is the enemy’s most effective tool. As Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” So we don’t need Kalashnikovs to fight since “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,” but we do need weapons. Apathy and inaction do not qualify.

I pray it will not take incidents happening here like the attack in Paris this morning to wake up believers in this country to the fact that a war has been declared. We need to be aware that our beliefs are being just as maliciously attacked by more subtle warriors in the name of tolerance and political correctness. I don’t mean to equate the ACLU or the GLBT movements with ISIL, but shame on us if we wait until we are facing assault weapons to stand for our rights. Truthfully, I wonder if many believers will stand against real persecution if they won’t stand against the more subtle kind we face now.

I love the story of a church in a persecuted land which was invaded by a group of armed men. The men aimed their weapons at the congregation and told those who would not die for their beliefs to leave. After some skulked out, the men lowered their weapons and said they wished the worship to continue now that only true believers remained. I never want to be in that situation, but I hope I would be among those who remain if ever I am.