Christophobia Part 2

There has been less than expected mention of the Rick Perry "I am a Christian..." political ad I commented on in my last post. Pollster Frank Luntz reported today that the ad polled under twenty percent among both Democrats and Republicans; fifty percent is the minimum number for an ad to be considered effective. I wonder if this means that even potential supporters of Governor Perry are uncomfortable with his openly Christian stance. If it is not that, perhaps people just don't like "negative" ads no matter how truthful they may be.

Perry is correct to say that there is a war on Christian values in our society. Objections to people saying Merry Christmas and lawsuits to ban nativity scenes from public property have surfaced again this holiday season. Bill Bennett rightly commented on Fox News yesterday that the only bigotry which is acceptable among the elite in America is that expressed against "believing Christians." (I suspect Bennett's Roman Catholic world-view allows for an oxymoronic non-believing Christian.) He is right; public figures and the media consistently bash what might be called fundamental Christian beliefs and practices while charging with hate crimes anyone who similarly denigrates Muslims, gays, blacks or any other group du jour.

Tim Tebow's streak ending loss on Sunday brought another round of anti-Christian commentary from people who obviously just don't get him. In the verbal run-up to the game last week a Democrat commentator whose name I never heard and don't remember made the quintessential elitist remark. Tebow's celebrated virginity was mentioned in passing and the Dem scoffed dismissively (I paraphrase,) "You know he got some in college; everybody does." It is beyond belief for the secular left in our society to imagine that anyone past puberty is not sexually active.

I have a theory that is not intended to be counter-dismissive or condescending, but it will be received as such by those about whom I theorize. I am of the opinion that there is an innate sense in every human that some things are right and some things are wrong. Sexual promiscuity tears at the heart of what is so clearly the fabric of civil society that it makes even libertines uncomfortable in their deepest hearts. If you want to get a heated discussion going, just bring up pornography, infidelity, teen pregnancy or any other sexual perversion. Believers who claim to practice sexual purity make the impure so uncomfortable they cannot help casting aspersions to assuage their guilt.

As I said before, Perry's ad touched both strings of this harp when he mentioned gays in the military and his Christian faith. Tim Tebow strums the same chord. Sarah Palin got the media salivating with stories of her daughter's pre-marital pregnancy and anything else they could hint about of a sexual nature. Because this subject is bound so deeply with what we are as humans, the Apostle Paul even tells the Corinthians that sexual sin is of a different nature than all other sins. Sexual perversion tinkers with the very core of what it means to be human.

It should be no surprise then that the media and the secular left jump all over any story that brings this up. It is sad to learn from recent polls that sexual sin is not much less prevalent in self-described Christians than in the society as a whole. Perhaps that explains why even conservatives, a group that ostensibly includes "believing Christians," are not responding more favorably to Perry's ad or coming more forcefully to the defense of Tebow or Palin. Perhaps we share the same guilt as the secular observers. Maybe this is a good time to remember Peter's admonition to keep a clear conscience so we can silence the slanderers. It makes for more peaceful sleep too.

Christophobia

Texas Governor Rick Perry is taking a huge risk in his campaign for the Republican nomination for President. He is being entirely transparent about his faith. He is certainly not the first candidate to admit to being a Christian, but the hand he has chosen to play will undoubtedly expose him to mockery and scorn. He has chosen to lay all his cards on the table and reveal what many of us know, but few will say out loud: Christians are not getting a fair shake in America.

The specific gambit to which I refer is a YouTube ad in which the Texas governor takes direct aim at the enemy in this country's culture war. In the ad a Carhartt clad Perry strolls across a sylvan scene and says, "I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.

I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message."

One day after the ad first aired, a Google search offered 501 responses by the media. I did not read all 501 offerings, but the main point of concern seems to be that Governor Perry has the audacity to imply that homosexuality is not acceptable to many Christians. I don't think that was his point. I think he was showing the disparity between the freedom of expression two opposing groups enjoy in this country. I think his point was that it is acceptable to admit openly that you are gay, but it is not acceptable to admit openly that you are a Christian. I also think that Perry's message will be completely lost because he dared to use gays as his target for comparison.

I cannot think of another group which has done such a masterful job of elevating the demands of a small minority to the level of national debate as has the homosexual lobby. Because many homosexuals are reluctant to expose themselves, hard data on the prevalence of the lifestyle are difficult to come by. It is instructive to discover that Gallup polling reveals that respondents think twenty percent of the population is gay, whereas most experts place the actual number below ten, many making it less than five. My point is that the homosexual lobby has made Americans think they are a much larger group than they probably are.

I am now going to digress and say something that may shock some of my dear readers. I do not think that homosexuals should be discriminated against. I do not think there is a way to directly apply the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus and Romans to the public square in America. I think homosexuality should be treated the same way smoking is treated. Neither could be considered best practices for Christians. At this time, neither is illegal. There are however compelling public health issues with both. Because tobacco use has been linked to cancer, it is regulated and warnings are required. Homosexuality also carries the risk of increased health problems and shortened life expectancy. It should be treated the same as smoking in public policy. But don't expect that to happen. Remember the lobby.

End of digression. Rick Perry dared to tweak the nose of the homosexual giant. I hope it has the result he desired. I suspect he wanted to make a big splash and re-energize his flagging campaign. He will certainly get plenty of press; I'm not sure it will be the kind that translates into votes in the Iowa caucuses or the South Carolina primary. Even though both of these states have strong conservative Christian voting groups, there are too many Christians who have been frightened by the giant. The cry for tolerance has muted the voice of the majority in this country. We are still a majority, we believers, at least for now.

In his classic book, Your God is Too Small, JB Philips suggests that if God came to earth he would not be well received. He would challenge the status quo and smash the castles built by human arrogance. Perry's recent gamble has pointed out that the God who did come to earth makes many people uncomfortable. Sadly, even people who claim to know and love this God-come-to-earth are frightened into awkward silence. I have not decided whether I think Governor Perry is the ideal Republican nominee, but I sure like his simple, honest, courageous approach to a problem no one is willing to talk openly about. Jesus plainly said the world would hate his true followers. I applaud Rick Perry for his willingness to stand up and take it.

What Would Jesus Undo?

I am in a group of guys reading through the book by Mark Batterson In a Pit with a Lion on a Snowy Day. Unlike many of the books I recommend, this is not some weighty philosophical tome that requires a dictionary as a companion. Batterson's conversational style and real life examples make for easy reading, yet still provide the thoughtful challenges I am looking for.

A couple of things have come to light lately that seem to dovetail with what Batterson is saying. One of the most striking things Batterson says is that our biggest problem is not learning something new; it is unlearning things we shouldn't have learned in the first place. He calls upon the example of Jesus teaching the Jews what their two thousand year old covenant with God was really all about. They had been taught many things by rabbis which were at cross purposes with the intentions of God, and they needed reeducation, unlearning. He likens this to defragmenting a corrupt hard drive on a computer and installing new software to process reality properly.

There are areas in my personal life where I find this concept useful. Batterson suggests that we should collect experiences, not possessions. This is a lesson I wish I had unlearned much earlier than I am unlearning it. I learned to live with the idea that if I could afford the payments, I could own the things I wanted. Judging from the polls revealing Baby Boomer indebtedness, I am not alone in this one. Every once in a while I like to pull out the book by A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God, and reread the chapter, "The Blessedness of Possessing Nothing." Tozer reminds me that it is all too easy for our possessions to become the possessor. I need to learn that.

There are many examples in public life where some unlearning would be healthy. Washington needs to unlearn that they can spend money they don't have. Somewhere along the line the folks in our government have come untethered from the concept of fiscal responsibility. What's worse is that they also seem to continually learn that there are "rights" that are not to be found in any of the country's founding documents. The elephant in the room in every debate over healthcare reform is the assumption that every citizen (and even non-citizens) has the right to medical care. Another unlearning lesson regards unemployment compensation. I wonder if it is really the government's job to pay people not to work for up to two years. Why not three years? Why not for a lifetime?

There are many things in our spiritual lives we need to unlearn too. Christians need to unlearn complacency. We need to unlearn apathy. We need to unlearn that the responsibility stemming from faith begins and ends on Sunday morning. We need to shed the bounded set mentality and embrace a centered set view which better represents the attitude Jesus seemed to have towards reality. Yes, there are boundaries; no I am not advocating wishy-washy, anything goes doctrine. I just think Jesus' approach to the world was far more liberal (dare I apply that word to the Savior) than many evangelicals will admit. A little unlearning would be a good thing for most of us.

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."