The Double, Double Standard

Herman Cain is under attack by the press lately because of allegations of sexual misconduct. The real story is unclear as of this writing, but it looks as though more than one woman accused Cain of harassment when he worked for the National Restaurant Association. Those cases are not in the public record because of settlement deals made at the time. Cain has repeatedly denied that there ever was any sexual harassment.

But the media wants to paint the settlement deals as proof of the allegations. This is not only bad journalism, it is bad legal interpretation. Settlements are often reached between parties when no wrongdoing has been discovered, or sometimes even when the innocence of the accused has been established. Because of our flawed tort system, it is often easier and less expensive to settle a case than to take it to trial. (If we rewrote the law so that the loser in civil suits paid all associated costs, the number of these cases would dwindle. If we made losing attorneys pay everything, they would cease.)

This is bad journalism because it presents a perfect case of ad hominem attack. Make the man look bad and you can discount everything he stands for. This media tactic may also involve another logical fallacy known as a red herring. Because Cain's message is resonating with a growing number of voters, his opponents would like nothing better than to have the focus taken off his popular policy proposals and shifted to something essentially irrelevant.

The irrelevance stems from the media's own admission that a politician's private habits are no concern to voters. Remember their mantra ceaselessly blared during the Lewinsky scandal which embroiled their beloved Bill Clinton: so what if the President was a philanderer, an adulterer; that fact has no bearing on his ability to run the country. Remember how little was made of the fact that media darling Jesse Jackson fathered an illegitimate child and apparently supported child and mother with funds donated to his organization. Other examples abound.

But let a conservative public figure have private problems and suddenly they become the basis for a complete rejection of the person and everything he or she stands for. And this is a good approach for liberals to take since most conservatives who are stained by misconduct generally step out of public life (Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin being notable recent exceptions.)

It is precisely this propensity to exit the stage which proves there is no double standard in most conservative circles. Private misdeeds do effect public performance. Someone once said that who you really are shows up best when no one is looking; good character is being good when you don't have to. And good character is essential for anyone seeking to represent in our representative republic. (Note please: we are not a democracy.)

So does that mean that what goes on behind the bleachers in high school and in dorm rooms in college and everywhere there are adults behind closed doors has a bearing on how we judge character? Simple answer: yes. The Bible and most other religious books teach that integrity is more than skin deep. In fact, it comes from within, from the heart. Perhaps this episode with candidate Cain will help to reveal his true heart. It has already revealed the heart of the liberal media -- as if we didn't know that already.

Do What You Can Do

I had a beautiful, albeit short sail last Sunday night. Instead of gloves and windbreakers it was T-shirts and shorts. I had a new sail I traded with a marina mate: one he couldn't use for one I didn't use. The dominant high pressure makes for pretty weather, but not much wind. That made the conditions perfect for my new light air sail. Halfway back across the bay on my second tack the light wind diminished to virtually no wind. Making a sailboat move in those conditions is a challenge I relish. I made it to the marina channel at a peaceful one foot per second -- at the fastest.

I used to dream of circling the globe in my own sailboat. Due to mechanical problems, I didn't even get out of Muskegon Lake this season. But it was a beautiful season even so. There were few days when I wanted to sail but could not due to bad weather. My wife and I enjoyed hours of peaceful relaxation tacking up and down the best sailing lake in Michigan. Each time I sail in October I realize it may be the last of the season. I try not to pre-mourn the lifting of the boat onto the hard. Winter is tough on Michigan sailors.

I have friends who feel similarly about golf. I have tried that, but those who have seen me know that I play not golf, but something between polo and self-flagilation. Then there are my biker friends. We love the (too short) riding season in Michigan. A recent Saturday trip to the Lelanau peninsula on my ancient Gold Wing provided so much eye music it began to hurt. Soon the bikes will sit idle, packed away from the ice and snow.

I could wish for a bigger boat, better golf skills, a newer bike or a longer season. Or I can just enjoy what I have. From the Apostle Paul to Howard Gardner (multiple intelligences) we are encouraged to make the best use of what we are given. Our time, talents and opportunities are gifts to be used as only we can. Failure to take advantage of what we have says to the Giver of all good and perfect gifts that we are not grateful and it reveals implicit disobedience.

I have longed to see one of my works on the best seller list. I have wished I could teach at some popular liberal arts university. I have come to regret many things I did (or didn't do) raising my kids. My wife will testify that I have only recently begun to be anything like the husband she dreamed of decades ago. I have just about come to grips with the idea that the past is past, the future is not promised, and all I have is today. And happiness is wanting what I have, not having what I want.

Jesus looked up the road to Jerusalem on his last trip there and sighed about what he could not do for the people because they wouldn't let him. But he didn't sit down and wallow in depression or self-pity; he walked into the city where his cross awaited. Don't complain about what you can't do with what you don't have. Get up and do what you can with what you have. That is all anyone can ask. That is all God requires.

Is God a Democrat?

This blog is for people who insist that there is no real difference between a Republican and a Democrat: after all, they’re both politicians, one might say. With that reasoning, there is no difference between men and women: after all, they’re both humans. While there are many issues on which both parties can be either uniformly commended or disparaged, there are also core principles which distinguish them. A couple prime examples of how the two major political parties differ have surfaced in recent new cycles.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case against Boeing in South Carolina which began last summer has resurfaced. Simply stated for those who may not be familiar with the case, the NLRB says Boeing cannot build a plant in South Carolina (a right to work state), because the company will be taking jobs from their facility in Washington state (a union plant.) Boeing says strikes at the Washington plant have seriously impaired their ability to serve their customers (I think that is what strikes are supposed to do.) To better serve their customers, Boeing wants to have non-union workers build their airplanes.

Good for Boeing; good for South Carolina; not so good for Washington (the state or the District.) The principle at stake here is that manufacturers should be allowed to make their products wherever they can get the biggest bang for the buck. The federal government has no business telling Boeing (or anyone else) where they can build plants. The free market system dictates that market forces, not the government, determine where and by whom things get made. If in fact there are laws on the books that would prohibit Boeing from building in South Carolina, it is the law that is wrong, not Boeing.

The other case that is hitting the news again is the question of the constitutionality of Obamacare. Specifically, some question the legality of the mandate that citizens must all buy health insurance. They ask what right the federal government has to compel a purchase on no condition other than citizenship. Proponents of Obamacare like to say this is no different than mandated auto insurance; this is a false comparison. A person may choose not to drive a car and escape the mandated insurance. A person would have to renounce citizenship to avoid the Obamacare mandate; these are not comparable. Proponents also maintain that healthcare is a right rather than a privilege. This is also mistaken; healthcare is no more a right than food or shelter. We should assist those who struggle to afford it, but not by mandating that everyone buy it in a federally prescribed manner. (For more on this, see my “Open Letter to Debbie Stabenow.”)

Someone may be asking about now what this has to do with heaven. The Christian world-view does have something to say about politics and economics. Some mistakenly think that the typical Democrat stance on most issues is more Christian: help the poor and needy; restrain greedy capitalists. Actually, the Republican position usually runs closer to a Biblical model. The Bible calls for individual responsibility and wise use of personal resources, not government enforced charity or government redistribution of wealth. Some misunderstand the early church practice of having things “in common” as being akin to communism. This is not at all correct. Even in its most radical forms, Christian charity is based in individual responsibility to manage what God has placed in one’s control. The church redistributes wealth which has been freely contributed by her members, not through compulsion.

None of this should be taken to mean that there are no Democrats who are Christians or that all Republicans are. Neither is the case. The point is that there are differences in the way the parties address issues, and usually the teams line up according to ideology. The Democrat ideology supports greater state or federal control while the Republicans usually lean toward greater individual responsibility. The Democrats are often concerned with equal outcomes whereas Republicans favor equal opportunities. In the end (on election days,) it does not come down to whether the person has a “D” or an “R” after his or her name. It is rather about whether the “P” (for policies) lines up with the G-O-D.

Crisis of Faith 3

I read a good book by Daniel Taylor recently called The Myth of Certainty. Taylor's message is that we are not wrong or weak to have questions about our faith. I recommended the book to the person I am corresponding with in this "Crisis of Faith" series. She asked two very good questions in her last email, so I will answer both as completely as I can while being as brief as possible. First she mentions that her circle of “friends” is all anti-Christian. I told her what I told my youngest daughter (the reflective one in our brood): "Get some Christian friends. If your church doesn’t have a group of young, vibrant people to hang out with, maybe you need a new church too. Have you considered volunteering at some Christian ministry in the area? That is another way to meet people who think Christianly.

"You say you want a position that is 'defensible.' Christianity is, in fact, the most defensible world-view I know. The only 'morons' in the scenario you describe are the ones poking fun at you. The word 'moron' comes from a Greek word meaning to be foolish or to act without knowledge. What your derisive co-workers don’t know is that the Bible has more empirical data supporting its validity than any other ancient text. Jesus’ existence and even his resurrection are better attested to than many commonly accepted events like the assassination of Julius Caesar or Washington crossing the Delaware (and thousands of others.) Your co-workers despise the Bible because it destroys their comfortable presuppositions. They cannot believe the Bible because it reveals their entire world-view as a sham."

(It may be comforting to know that more and more scientific types are finding a Darwinian, evolutionary explanation of the universe to be untenable. Not that they are all becoming Christians, but the last report I heard said a majority of scientists now reject Darwinian evolution in favor of some kind of design theory. That puts Christians in the majority with a possible explanation for the design which science is now finding impossible to explain in evolutionary terms. One author believes that we are witnessing the last generation of people who will try to defend Darwinian evolution.)

"Now for your second issue: does God send 'good people' to hell. No. Categorically, no. Surprised? I can say that with authority because there are no 'good people.' You know that too. 'All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.' You must have read Romans three. Ever since Adam chose to go his way instead of God’s way, every human born is destined for hell. That is just the way it is. As our federal head, Adam messed it up for the entire race. You may not like the sound of that; it is harsh. I agree. But you said it yourself, 'We [are] mostly just nasty people struggling to contain our irrational, aggressive, selfish natures.' The key word you used is 'selfish.' We have a hard time accepting the fact that there is a God up there who gets to make the rules, not us.

"At this point I am going to tell you something that could get me in a lot of trouble. I think that many Christians have a simplistic view of salvation through Jesus. I believe unequivocally that there is no salvation in any other name but Jesus, just like the Bible says. However, I think God gets pretty creative in how he saves those he wants saved. We just heard last Sunday from a former missionary about a whole Muslim village having a dream about Jesus the night before someone came to preach there. I have heard stories like that all my life. I also think that God saves infants (like all the aborted ones) who never receive Jesus in the typical way. I think God saved every Old Testament saint without their ever saying the name Jesus. Some would say these are exceptions or special cases. I think every person is a special case. Frankly, I think God can save whomever he wishes to save. There will not be one single person in hell by accident because they didn’t get a chance to hear the gospel.

"When you say this sounds 'uncaring and inflexible' you are applying human judgments to God’s actions. That’s your mistake. We can’t judge God by our standards; he judges us by his standards. If reading Taylor gave you the same kind of confidence kick he gave me, you should be able to stand up to your atheist co-workers and give them what-for. Honestly, the ground they stand on is a whole lot shakier than where you stand. Remember the parable about the house on the sand and the house on the rock. Remember you stand on the Rock. Those other guys are on quicksand."

Do This in Remembrance

September 11, 2001, is without a doubt one of the most significant dates in United States history. The loss of life, the suffering, the anxiety of that day is without parallel. Yes, D-day, Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg and Bull Run matched or surpassed the casualty numbers of 9/11, but the immediacy and stunning reality offered by modern media coverage made the events of that September morning garish and dramatic in a way not known before.

When the four hijacked planes had wreaked their havoc on our collective senses, we were driven to our knees in more ways than one. We had the wind knocked out of our arrogance, arrogance bred by an adolescent feeling of invulnerability. Something more than a geopolitical hubris was shattered that day. People who had previously used the name of God only in vain suddenly took it more seriously. Certainly, some still cursed with an added vehemence. But millions of other Americans bent their knees in earnest prayers: prayers for the victims, for the families, for our leaders. And many prayed for understanding: what can this mean.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. It falls on a Sunday and the church I attend will be celebrating the Lord’s Supper. I am struck by the parallels between these two memorials. The shock, the pain, the utter senselessness of the violence must have been predominant in the days immediately following both events. Fear edged in as people wondered if more death and destruction would follow. A strong sense of community and shared suffering flooded the American people on 9/12 as it must have those distraught followers of Christ the day after “Good Friday.” For many there was a foreboding that an era had come to a close, that the future was shrouded by gloom.

When Jesus told his little band at the Last Supper that they would henceforth see the cup and the loaf in a new way, it was like the evening of 9/10/2001. They did not grasp the import; they had no idea what was about to descend upon them. Twenty-four hours later, then especially fifty days later, they began to understand. The horrors of that one awful day would never be forgotten, and the true significance of it was cemented in their hearts and minds by the trauma.

I am not suggesting for a moment that 9/11 has equal historical significance to the day Christ died. I am saying that believers would do well to seek that sense of community, the shared suffering, the renewed sense of purpose that dawned with 9/12. Just as it would do our country good to remember that, it would do the church good to hear, “Do this in remembrance” as a call to that. When we, “Remember his death until he comes again,” let us remember what a traumatic, world-shaking thing it was. If we really believe, we must see that the world still trembles from the effects of that wonderful, terrible day. Although our fear has been replaced by hope, we must never lose the urgency of the drama; we must not forget the eternal significance of the event. That is why we have memorials.

Crisis of Faith 2

It is not unusual for me to be asked why I believe so firmly that I am right about my faith. In answer I will offer a brief explanation why I believe what I do. First to philosophy. I know I am very Western or occidental in this, but I cannot get comfortable with the Eastern (oriental) mystics' concept of a universe without reason and logic. Most of the religions from the East are based on the idea that the world humans experience is meaningless: there is no point trying to figure things out, because there are no answers. The height of human experience in the Eastern way of thinking is to empty the mind of everything -- reason, emotion, memory, everything. This, they say, is the path to true fulfilment. That just doesn't work for me.

After the philosophical reasons come the historical. There is no other figure in history quite like Jesus. There have been many good teachers and other charismatic leaders, even some who claimed to be divine. But none can match Jesus' performance: he came back from the dead to validate his claim of divinity. You don't have to rely on the Bible alone to believe this astounding fact. Many secular sources confirm that people who were Jesus' contemporaries swore to the death (literally) that he was alive. It's hard to argue with an eye witness if you weren't there too. (And no, none of the theories against the resurrection hold water.)

Another historical fact that is just about as miraculous as the resurrection is the Bible itself. Name one other book that can make any of the Bible's claims. Written across a thousand years in 66 books with 40 different authors, the Bible contains one unified message from Genesis to Revelation: God made humans for Himself; they turned away; He is driving history to bring His people back. And you can't ignore the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies; the statistical probability of chance fulfillment is staggering beyond reason. (No, I don't buy the detractors' argument that the prophecies were written after the events and predated. Archaeology soundly rebuts that canard.)

Finally there is the spiritual proof. This one is difficult to present because it is the strongest argument to the individual who experiences it, while being the weakest defense against those who have not. One can point to thousands of transformed lives over the centuries as proof that Christianity "works." Yet doubtless there are Buddhist, Muslim and Zoroastrian conversions which seem to contradict Christianity's exclusive claims. All I can say is that I know that I know that I know that the Spirit of God dwells in me and that He feeds me, leads me and gives me a sense of peace and assurance that is undeniable.

When it all comes down, the choice of a belief system will necessarily involve faith. (That was redundant.) Whether you choose Christianity, Hinduism or Voodoo, you will come to a point where you must give yourself over to faith. The real choice then is whether you will choose to place your self in the hands of Jesus, Vishnu or Satan or whomever. I choose Jesus. It is not a blind choice (like some say, "Blind faith.") It is faith in a set of revealed propositions which satisfy my requirements for a world-view. In other words, it works for me.

Crisis of Faith 1

I was introduced to a young woman recently who is having some doubts about her Christian faith, raising some legitimate questions for which the prepackaged answers are not satisfying. I have decided to publish my answers here since the questions she has are not at all unusual these days. The global marketplace of ideas has made "shopping" for religion much more prevalent than in the days of monolithic belief systems passed on from one generation to the next. Even in the past, however, it was always necessary for each generation to choose to believe or not, because God doesn't have any grandchildren.

The issue which currently troubles this young woman is whether good people who don't believe in Jesus damned to hell? For those of you who read me regularly, you know I dealt with that at length in my series “Answering Rob Bell,” parts 1-6. Before I even get to the point of sharing that argument however, there are more basic issues to settle. The question of God’s judgment cannot be answered without first tackling another more basic one: is the Bible the revealed truth of God or not? Until one settles that question, there can be no ground for debate. Granted, there are different "interpretations" of many Bible passages, but unless two people agree that the Bible is authoritative, they will have no ground on which to base their arguments.

I believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the Bible is unlike any other book known to man; I believe it has the kind of supernatural characteristics that one would expect in a document that claims to be the revelation of a supreme being. Its unaltered longevity, fulfilled prophecies, historical and archaeological accuracy and amazing internal integrity (for a book comprised of 66 volumes written by 44 authors over thousands of years) argue clearly for its divine nature.

Philosophically, I believe that a supposed supreme being who created sentient creatures would logically want to communicate with them in some way. It is also logical to imagine that said being would likely have rules of engagement and standards of acceptable behavior. It would be illogical, if not sadistic to create sentient beings with innate moral sensibilities and then leave them clueless as to the basis for their existence.

Some have proposed that the God of their imagination is just such a sadist, as a poem by Steven Crane suggests that God built the ship of humanity and then sent it rudderless into the sea of fate. This is the position traditionally known as deism and describes the view of many who call themselves agnostics. This point of view is intellectually unsatisfying to me, and has proven depressing to virtually all those who hold to it, many becoming hopeless nihilists or bitter cynics as a result.

I concluded the first response to my friend by saying that if we can agree that the Bible is an authoritative source of truth for determining who we are and how we must live, then we can have a discussion. I will enlarge my response to the original questions in the next installment. If you are interested in following this line, stay tuned.