Calling a Sin a Sin

The widespread reaction to the Grand Jury verdict declining to indict Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri was sad, if predictable. Just as predicable was the President’s sympathetic reaction, but in a speech in Chicago he revealed something of his personal character and beliefs that is shocking in its import. Referring to the distrust between law enforcement and minority communities, the President said, "The problem is not just a Ferguson problem. It's an American problem," USA Today reports. Obama added, "If any part of the American community doesn't feel welcomed or treated fairly, that's something that puts all of us at risk, and we all have to be concerned about it."

Given the context, the President seems to be saying that we should expect violent reactions from people who feel that they are being treated unfairly. The context also includes the indisputable fact that the justice system worked as intended, but there are people who don’t consider it fair. The subject of the speech where he delivered his bombshell was his new immigration policies. I wonder if the President meant to imply that violence is the normal reaction to treatment that fails to meet someone’s standard of “welcomed.” I wonder if the President was hinting that we should expect violence from immigrants who don’t feel “welcomed.”

To his credit, the President did condemn the violent reactions, but he came very close to saying he not only understands, but sympathizes with the protesters. He wants us to be concerned about the “risk” of treating someone in a manner they don’t like. He seems to be sympathetic toward the perpetrators instead of the victims of violence. I wonder if President Obama feels sympathy toward Cain, the slayer of his brother Abel; Cain felt as though he was treated unfairly. Perhaps we have been misinterpreting the first murder; perhaps it was Cain who was wronged, and Abel just got what he deserved for being so unfair to his brother.

We saw this same kind of misguided sympathy soon after we were attacked in 2001. People asked why the Islamic terrorists hated us so; they wondered what we had done to “deserve” the attack. Perhaps if we had treated them more fairly they wouldn’t have attacked. To ask such a question betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of history, of radical Islamic culture, and of human nature itself. (The Christian Post has an excellent article on the Islamic hatred of the West.) One of Cain descendants, Lamech, expresses the fallen human tendency well, “I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold.” Islamic terror is simply revenge for a perceived wrong.

It is a human tendency to get even, sometimes even when the slight is trivial or innocent in itself. Abel didn’t deserve to die; America didn’t deserve 9/11; Ferguson’s merchants didn’t deserve the violence perpetrated against them. These were all acts of vengeful individuals who felt as though they had been treated unfairly. Obama is correct that humans can be expected to do such things. What worries me is that he seems to be on their side. He seems to be saying that we are responsible for their actions, as if it were our fault for being unfair.

It is wrong to imply that we bear some sort of national blame for the sense of injustice some African Americans feel toward our justice system. To be clear, Christians must stand for justice, but we must also stand against injustice of the kind perpetrated by the protesters in Ferguson. The system declared Darren Wilson innocent of wrongful actions. The Grand Jury based their decision on facts of evidence, not on a preferential treatment of whites or disregard for blacks. The pressure under which they labored surely would have pushed them to indict if there were the slightest evidence of wrong doing. They declined. To protest that decision with violent action is to commit sin. Those violent acts betray the darkest regions of human fallen nature. Those acts do not merit any sympathy.

We can be sorry that a young man lost his life as a result of a police officer performing his duty. We can be sorry that a situation exists in America where a segment of our citizens so distrust the police and the justice system that their default attitude is set on grievance. We can even be sorry that our ancestors treated African slaves so badly for so long that they feel aggrieved. What we should not feel is sorry that Darren Wilson was declared just in his actions. And we certainly should not feel sorry for the sinners who are burning Ferguson because of that decision. Not to contradict the President, but I think we Americans should be concerned about the risk of bowing to the demands of sinful human nature instead of calling a sin what it is: sin.

Slip-slidin' Away

The first real winter weather has hit West Michigan, and once again, it seems like everyone has forgotten how to drive on slippery roads. Is it really that hard to remember to slow down and leave lots of extra space between you and the car you are following? Really? The people who end up on the curb or in the ditch all seem to have the same surprised look on their faces. They can't all be from Florida experiencing their first winter drive.

Then there are those people in their four-wheel-drive vehicles. (Full disclosure: I drive one.) Apparently they imagine that having all the wheels driving the car makes the laws of physics void. Not so much. It doesn't matter how many wheels put power to the road, once the accelerator is released and brakes are applied, all vehicles are more or less equal. If the road surface is slippery, braking becomes a matter of how well the car/driver can modulate the slowing of the wheel rotation. Anti-lock brakes are a wonderful invention (when they work), and they work independently of the drive mechanics: 4WD, AWD, FWD, RWD will all skid if too much brake is applied.

Stopping on slippery roads is more or less equal between all vehicles of the same weight. Physics again dictate that a heavier vehicle will take longer to stop than a lighter vehicle; it's all about inertia and mass and other such inevitability. Good tires, bad tires, any number of drive wheels on either end of the car all skid according to the inertia and mass involved. Once a wheel has stopped turning (definition of "skid"), the laws of physics are driving and the human driver is helpless. The only way to increase traction is with studs which are illegal for us everyday folks.

While it might feel safer in a big, heavy vehicle, it is not often the case. If you are in the one hitting another vehicle which is lighter than yours, there is a small advantage. If you are hit by a smaller vehicle there is a similar small advantage. But in all other cases, size doesn't matter. If you hit an immovable object like a tree or bridge abutment, the deciding factors will be your own weight and the safety measures installed and functioning. The airbags and seat belts will help prevent injuries, but every body in a car that suddenly stops will continue to move at the previous speed until it hits something, large car or small.

If it seems like I have turned into a driver ed instructor, it may help to know that I am one, rather, I was once. So what has Heaven to do with this. The laws of physics apply to believers as well as the rest of the population. However, I believe we have the advantage of a sovereign God who cares about even our slippery commute to work, or church, or shopping, or wherever. What this means to me is not that I can speed along oblivious to conditions, but that I need not panic when black ice is more prevalent than tarmac.

If I end up in a ditch, it is because my Lord wanted me there for some reason. It may be to teach me humility regarding His physical laws related to friction. It may be that I need to witness to the tow truck driver who will pull me out. It may be that He parked me there so I would not be in the 247 car pile-up that I would have encountered. I don't know. And I don't care. I trust Him. When I was driving for a living, people used to ask if I wasn't stressed out by having to drive thousands of miles every week in bad weather. My answer has always been, "No. I trust the Lord I serve to take care of me -- no matter the weather."

This same attitude should apply to all the risks we face in our dark and dangerous world. Nothing can overtake us that is not under the watchful eye of the Creator, Sustainer, Completer God. No terrorist, mugger, stalker, geo-physical or weather demon can thwart the plans God has for us. That even has to apply when any of the above seem to overtake us; they are not in control; God is.  Peter and John proved this when they led the hymn-sing in prison. My advice is to tune in to some good music and slow down; enjoy the drive and the everlasting arms in which you drive. It's my belief that you can never slip out of those arms once you are in them, no matter how slippery the road may be.

Veteran's Thanksgiving Day

If you can read this, thank a veteran. I know, there were teachers involved too, but the system of free public education within which your teachers labored was made possible by the sacrifices of tens of thousands of American servicemen and women. Then there is your freedom to use the Internet -- bought by vets. The job where you earned the money to to buy this computer -- secured by those who defend us. You'd be hard pressed to name anything  connected to the American dream that is not in some way established or maintained by those who served or are serving in the armed forces.

And let us not make the mistake demonstrated by David Masciotra of Salon.com. If you read only the first few paragraphs of Masciotra's article, it sounds like any other liberal panty-waist who doesn't like anyone who carries a gun. He is clearly not in favor of the foreign policy decisions made by recent administrations (Democrat or Republican). He is also rightly disgusted by the miscreants who sometimes get into uniforms and do awful things. But he makes the mistake of saying that only the "the soldier who runs into the line of fire to protect his division" or "the police officer who works tirelessly to find a missing child" are really heroes. His mistake is in thinking that the infrastructure behind those truly heroic acts is not essential to the commission of the valiant acts themselves.

Everyone who has served in uniform deserves the thanks of those of us who benefit from their service. The uncommon bravery of a few must be recognized, but the common, even mundane acts of service by all the rest are also worthy of our esteem and honor. The financial hardships borne by either military or law enforcement qualify as acts of service (enlisted persons on food stamps). The stress borne by the families of those who answer the call to serve is another form of sacrifice (wives and children without husbands and fathers). The real demon of PTSD which was overlooked in the past, but which haunts our society. The thousands of wounded warriors who would have died in earlier conflicts, but because of medical marvels are living scarred among us.

Honor to whom honor is due, the Apostle Paul commands. There are none in America on this or any day who deserve honor more than our veterans. Thank you, all of you!

Hooray! We Won... Now What?

If you have read much of what I have to say here, you will not be surprised to know I am elated with the results of the 2014 mid-term elections. It would seem that maybe (but just "maybe") the electorate has realized the error of hoping for "hope and change" Obama-style. But I am not overly optimistic: the new legislative leadership under McConnell and Boehner is not going to be able to transform our government quickly or easily. Much of what disturbs conservatives is entrenched bureaucracy (think IRS targeting conservatives), judicial over-reach (think Ninth Circuit overturning a vote of the people) or executive hubris (think Obama's threats to use executive orders to steamroll his policies into practice).

I still believe what I said back in August of 2012: Obama is not the problem. It may be that all we saw last Tuesday was the populace saying they want a better, stronger, more effective form of socialism. That may sound like a terribly pessimistic and warped conclusion, but voter turn-out statistics may support it. Because of the pathetically low rate of participation, a small minority of the electorate made Tuesday's choices. (More on that in the conclusion.) US News reports that disenchanted Democrats stayed home while energized Republicans voted.

This could mean that a majority of the voters still want the "free" hand-outs of a socialistic government, but they are fed up with Obama's failure to get it done.

Then there are those other nasty realities that the new Republican leadership must face. The behemoth that is the Federal bureaucracy did not go away with Tuesday's vote. Millions of worker bees with billions of dollars in their budgets are still fully empowered to continue to implement bad policy both new and old. Combine this with the President's clear intention (threat) to use (abuse) his pen to make law by executive order despite anything Congress might say or do. Those orders can be undone by the next President only if he or she is of a different stripe. (More on that later, too.) Finally, the third branch of government tilts leftward far enough use judicial fiat to bring into practice countless things the voters openly eschew.

Each of these gloomy predicaments has a positive resolution, but it did not resolve on Tuesday; it may not even be in the works. McConnell and Boehner have not enthusiastically supported the conservative wing of their party; both in fact have at times worked around or against them. According a New York Times story last March, “I think we are going to crush them [Tea Party candidates] everywhere,” Mr. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said in an interview, referring to the network of activist organizations working against him." This does not bode well for those of us with Tea Party type imaginations.

As for the gargantuan bureaucracy, dismantling it will take years of concentrated legislative effort. The first step requires a will to begin; I'm not sure the crop of politicians we elected Tuesday are up for that. Some doubtless are, and they have proven their mettle (Scott Walker in Wisconsin). Others are too afraid of disappointing the forty-plus percent of Americans who are beneficiaries of government programs to even talk about shrinking, let alone ending them.

Lastly, the judiciary is supposedly insulated from the partisanship of electoral cycles, but history proves that to be a thin protection. Every administration since George Washington has tried to put its favorites on the benches of the federal court system. The Washington Post reported last June that there were 57 judicial nominees awaiting approval. The Senate is not supposed to consider partisan bias in their role of "advise and consent" to the President's nominees, yet both parties have tried to block candidates of whom they disapprove (eg. Robert Bork).

So where is "heaven" in all this (WHAMM)? Tuesday did not even come close to winning the war against conservative ideas in this country. A major skirmish went our way, but the battle rages on. Any Christian who could have voted but did not vote last Tuesday should be ashamed. The Epistle of James says, "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them." Believers have a responsibility to take part in the process that allows them to make choices about who governs.

Voting is a major part of that responsibility, but it does not stop there. Remaining educated about the issues is critical. The founders realized that the experiment in representative Constitutional government they began would only work if the electorate remained informed. Jefferson believed that even democracy could devolve into tyranny if people were not properly educated. It is also important to continue to support and advise those who represent us after we elect them. There really is a feedback loop that affects how legislators think about the bills they support. According to Tim Hysom of the Congressional Management Foundation, "Members listen to the views of their constituents through all kinds of means…. They take all that information … and they craft their views and policies.

So while Tuesday's election results are a step in a positive direction for conservatives, the road back to a conservative America is long and it stretches uphill all the way. Human nature being what it is, people will always want something for nothing. And since being ignorant is easier than being educated, vast numbers of voters will make bad decisions. Believers must not grow weary in the march toward the next presidential election (although it sure is a relief to be without the political ads for a while). Keep up the conversation with friends, neighbors and, yes, your elected representatives.. Believers seldom fall prey to "sympathy for the devil," but sadly many are guilty of apathy toward his schemes; the end of either is the same. It would be a shame if we lose our freedoms because of our own apathy.

Take-away From The Giver

Here I go again, writing about a movie I haven't seen yet, but since people are talking about The Giver now, and I won't see it until it hits the video store (too late to be relevant), I am going to comment anyway. I do know the plot, since it is based on a novel by Lois Lowry and a summary is available on Sparknotes. From the reviews I have read, the point of Lowry's novel, that to have meaning, life must have passion, is preserved in the movie.

The mistaken idea in Lowry's imaginary Utopia is that restraint (moral or otherwise) is the cause of the unrest and unhappiness in society. In her fiction, Lowry creates what I would call a "soul-less" society: no love, no hate; no right, no wrong; no passion; no striving; nothing that makes life worth living. With Robin Williams death, I am reminded of a line from my all-time favorite movie of his: Dead Poet's Society.   As Professor Keating said, "We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion….  poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.

When someone like Robin Williams takes his own life, many people express surprise. His public persona would lead one to believe he had it made. A deeper look reveals a dark, troubled soul. Like so many before him, his tragic end proves that money and fame do not buy happiness -- not even a down payment on happiness. In another award-winning role in Good Will Hunting, a Williams' character (a psychologist, ironically) encourages a troubled young genius to follow his passion even if it means rejecting the offer of almost certain wealth and fame.

The Giver seems to imply that a society without passion, without soul cannot satisfy the human spirit. I agree. But there is more to making life work than passion; there must be a way to regulate that passion, or it will run wild into anarchy. Humans are hard-wired for control, for boundaries. It is a practical impossibility to allow everyone to have complete freedom; eventually what I want will conflict with what you want, and one of us will have to defer. The trick is finding the best way to manage that deference.

There is an age-old answer to managing human passion: it is the moral code handed down from the Creator and revealed in the Bible. The One who made us knows best how to manage us. Societies that have followed this management system have fared well; those which have abandoned it have collapsed. A study I mentioned in an earlier post proves this is true regarding sexual morality, a large part of the moral puzzle. Societies collapse when the management system known as marriage is dissolved. This should be no surprise since family is the most basic unit of any society. Wreck family and you destroy the foundation of society.

The Muslim extremists have a pretty good handle on what it takes to make life meaningful: you need a passion, and you must believe that passion aligns with the fundamental elements of the universe. They are correct in their philosophy, but they have the wrong understanding of the universe. The universe is not controlled by a stern magistrate who just waits for us to step out of line so he can zap us as they believe. Nor is the universe simply waiting for us to discover our passion as Lowry seems to imply.

The universe, as I understand it, is created and controlled by a loving God who has laid out a plan for his creation to align their passions with His and live a truly fulfilled life. We don't need to ride a bike (or a sled) to some imaginary "Elsewhere" to find our purpose. Our purpose, as the Westminster Catechism says is to, "glorify God and enjoy Him forever." That's my "memory" from the True Giver.

Teachers or Testing?

One of the banner ads on my Facebook page caught my eye today. It asked me to vote "for" teachers and "against" standardized tests. Huh? My first thought was that this is like voting for peaches or winter. (Actually, my first thought was, "How stupid!") There is a ground swell of resistance to certain academic practices that showcases the failure of certain academic practices. Anyone who can place testing and teaching in opposition clearly needs some teaching. Assessment (testing) is an integral part of teaching; this applies to standardized tests as well as other assessments created by individuals or publishers.

I imagine this resistance to standardized tests is a corollary to the backlash against Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Those who oppose CCSS often mistake it for "curriculum" and assume it dictates what teachers must teach. As I have previously written, this is a misunderstanding. CCSS, like any set of standards, merely establishes benchmarks to measure the academic progress of students. Standardized tests are supposed to be the tools to measure said progress (or lack thereof). Admittedly, I have been displeased with much of what has been offered as "standardized" testing, since it is often the result more of political process than academic research. However, the concept of testing students to determine their mastery of certain concepts is sound educational practice and should be encouraged.

I wonder what the detractors of testing and standards are in favor of. The current sorry state of public education in this country should be enough to drive anyone toward efforts to improve. To measure improvement, standards are necessary. Imagine a football field with no yard markers on the field and no goal line. Officials would have no way to award first downs -- no way to call touchdowns. The game would be pointless. Standardized testing puts the yard markers in the classroom. Testing allows easy comparison of teachers, programs, and schools. Testing gives everyone a goal to strive for. 

The misapprehension among the detractors is that standards place onerous demands upon teachers and schools, taking away their autonomy. This is true only in the sense that standards force teachers and schools to show where their students are on a scale that can be used to measure them across district, state, or national boundaries. What I have seen of the CCSS looks like a robust but achievable set of standards for educators. What we need is an appropriate test to measure mastery of those standards. I don't know if such a test exists yet; Common Core is too new for definitive judgment.

In my education classes at the seminary (eons ago), I was taught that God desires the best from each of us -- that excellence is the standard we must establish. I also learned that no human product will ever be perfect, but that striving for perfection is our duty. The Common Core State Standards are not perfect, but they are an effort to prod educators toward excellence. I don't see anything wrong with that. I vote for teachers and testing, thank you.

Make Time for Timeless Truth

Sky News reports today that the Church of England has approved the ordination of women as bishops in the UK church. Since several other national Anglican branches have already made this move, it comes as a dull surprise. The female head of the American branch of the denomination last year, "mocked most of the crucial doctrines of the Christian faith, including the God of creation, the Incarnation, and the Trinity," according to an article on Beliefnet. With such a low view of the authority of the Scripture, it is no wonder that another tenet of the historic Christian faith has toppled like London Bridge.

My Sunday School class had an interesting discussion recently when we pondered why the children of the "Greatest Generation" are leaving the church in droves. (According to Barna, 59% of Millenials are "walking away from either their faith or the institutional church at some point in the first decade of their adult life.") We came up with the theory that even though many parents had a sincere faith, it was not worn on the shirt sleeves for all to see. What the children did see was their parents striving for material success and presenting "church" as an add-on. Lacking any reasonable motivation to continue the weekly charade, the fledglings left "church" in the nest once they flew.

My own children have attended Bible-preaching churches every Sunday (twice, and once on Wednesday) pretty much all their lives, yet I still hear the hint of post-modern relativism creeping into their conversations and lifestyles. I will never forget the night I was explaining why homosexual behaviors are not acceptable for Christians, and one of my own offspring said, "Oh, Dad, that's just your interpretation of the Bible." Ouch! I know God has no grandchildren, but I had hoped that His children who sprang from my loins would mirror my heartfelt beliefs. Maybe someday.

The retreat from traditional belief is thought by some to be a way to attract young people. I believe, rather, that people of all ages seek something timeless, solid, dependable. Far from winning faltering believers, backing away from the absolute into the relative only makes a belief system less attractive to real thinkers. Society is ripe with examples of harsh systems that engender fanatical allegiance: urban gangs, extreme religious cults (like Islamic jihadism), the Amish. Watering down the faith washes out the floundering.

Jesus' teaching emphasized sticking to the truth behind the rules of his day. Certainly, he blasted hypocritical observance that sought public recognition without inner motivation. But far from weakening the rules, he strengthened them by highlighting the inner reason for the outer behavior. Read his Sermon on the Mount for proof of this. Maybe what was missing from our parenting was the explanation for why we did what we did and an open expression of its connection to the Scripture. 

The Beliefnet article points out that the mainline denominations which have embraced relative truth are dying. The only churches that are growing are the ones telling the "old, old story" and living it in meaningful ways. Ships can ride out some pretty serious weather if they have a good anchor. People today are desperately looking for an anchor in ride out life's storms. They have only the shifting sand of relativism; we have an anchor for the soul. That anchor is our hope in the God of truth -- the absolute, timeless truth. If we show that to people, young or old, they will be knocking down our doors instead of leaving through them. As Edith Ann (Lily Tomlin) used to say from her rocking chair, "And that's the truth!"