An Oncoming Revolt by Christians? I don't think so.

            Matt Barber, in a piece published by WND recently, suggests a Christian revolt is on the horizon . Matt Barber: The Coming Christian Revolt.  As much as I’d like to agree with him, I cannot.  I just don’t see it.  Are Christians facing discrimination like never before?  Yes.  Does it appear that Christian persecution in the United States is on the horizon?  Yes.  Will Christians stand firm?  I’m not certain.

             Barber correctly and rightly describes the Christian view of sin:  "It is not so much that Christians wish, willy-nilly, to call abortion, homosexual behavior, fornication, adultery, bestiality, incest or any other disordered sexual proclivity “sinful.” It is, rather, that we must. For the true Christian, God’s objective truths will always trump man’s subjective desires."

        He then suggests that Christians will ultimately stand for these beliefs.  He is much more optimistic than I am, mostly because too much of Americanized Christianity is an amalgam of First Amendment, Bible, and conservative political ideology.  For instance, I don’t agree with most things Rachel Held Evans says, but she rightly strikes a nerve when questioning the long established pattern of evangelical kowtowing to a single political party.  Too many who claim Christianity can’t seem to distinguish flag waving or so-called conservative politics from Christian living.

            The problem with this pattern is Christians feel threatened when the liberties granted by the government appear threatened.  For instance, I think too many evangelicals of importance got hyped up about the Hobby Lobby case, both pre and post decision.  Suppose the decision had gone the other way?  So what?  Would we as Christians not remain committed to the gospel message?  Some of the discussion seemed to argue that religious liberty emanates from Caesar rather than from God.  My duty to spread the gospel comes from God, not from man.  My right, yes right, to proclaim the gospel comes from God, not from man.  My ability to spread the gospel comes from God, not man.  My willingness to spread the gospel comes from God, not man.

            Do we not then, as Christians, have all the liberty we need from God?

            Peter and John established a pattern for us when in Acts 5:29 they told the Sanhedrin “We must obey God rather than men.”  Unfortunately, American Christians seem to think if the government doesn’t uphold our right to exercise our religious sensibilities, or speak freely, that this has some actual bearing on whether we must speak out.  I have watched my friend Nathan preach on the street in the face of hostility, despite rather insensitive and vile remarks hurled his way.  Yet he continues, knowing the gospel message matters more.  Most people want nothing to do with this kind of evangelism, claiming it doesn’t work, or it gives Christians a bad name, or they prefer “friendship” evangelism, and so forth.  Mostly, though, I think too many Christians simply never want to talk about the gospel out of fear or shame.  I’m guilty of not speaking up too many times myself.

            Government endorsed limitations on Christian speech, Christian action, and even Christian belief, are here, now.  The New Mexico Supreme Court spoke to this issue recently in the Elane Photography case, requiring the photographer in question to simply set aside her Christian worldview if she were going to offer her services to the public at large.  The court basically told Christians to sit at the kid’s table and keep their mouths shut or suffer the consequences.  While many Christians claim to be upset, frustrated, or otherwise incensed about such decisions, the reality is we sit back, whine, complain, and go back to American Idol, SEC football, or singing the song from Frozen.

            I am not as optimistic as Matt Barber seems to be.  He believes a Christian revolt is coming.  I see many so-called Christians simply doing what they always do: belly-ache, vote Republican, shrug their shoulders, and shut their mouths when opportunities present themselves to actually speak up.  I don’t see a revolt coming.

            We are too soft, to weak-kneed, to undisciplined, too hooked on Americanism, to do anything.  John Piper says the Christian life is a battlefield.  He is right.  Unfortunately, most American Christians seem to think they need the government’s permission to take on the armor of God in order to participate in the battle. The First Amendment was made by men, not decreed by God.  Some of us are acting like the First Amendment, not the First Commandment matters more.

 

            American Christians, wake up.  You have a God-given,  God-mandated obligation to speak.  If the First Amendment vanishes tomorrow, it will make it harder on us, yes.  But our liberty comes from God, not from men.  If we are silent now, while we still have our “rights” what are the odds we’ll revolt?  I’d like to agree with Matt Barber, but I just don’t see it.  

Me? Defend Ann Coulter? Unthinkable?

            I’m a simple guy.  I like soccer.  I enjoyed watching the World Cup.  Unbeknownst to me,  Ann Coulter doubled down on her stupid and humorless piece about soccer.  She claims “The massive and hysterical response to my jovial sports piece proves how right I was.”  Speaking only for myself, what it proved to me was Ann Coulter doesn’t really understand satire, and isn’t funny.

            In her defense, though, the kind of ridiculous nonsense that passes for commentary about her is mind boggling.  Apparently people think that using profanity, making references to various sexual matters, and otherwise belittling Ann Coulter makes for a response to her twittiness.  No, all that does is confirm that most people have no idea how to make a reasonable, or logical, argument.  Whatever else Ms. Coulter lacks (knowledge or understanding of soccer, obviously), she doesn’t deserve trashing.

            I have on two other occasions used my modest blog to excoriate Ms. Coulter for her severe lack of winsomeness.  Frankly, her commentary grates me because of its caustic nature.  But she doesn’t use profanity; she doesn’t make arguments without offering some sort of rationale; and she actually strings together sentences in a way that makes sense.  Little of this can be said for many of her detractors.

        When you dislike something someone says, you have to offer more than shouting them down, right?  You can’t just throw out epithets, right?  I mean you ought to have something sensible to say regarding their opinion, right?

          Well, in America these days, such is often not the case.  There are some places where the on-line debate is civil and respectful, even when the disagreement is severe.  This is unusual.  Many commenters simply take to their keyboard in an apparent effort to see how many *** they can put in between letters and still get the gist of the profanity out there. (One guy I saw was imaginative and used g2y for gay – wow – still not clear on how this got into a comment about Ann Coulter’s views on soccer, though).  Or, they refer to the author’s or other commenter’s sexual proclivities (as if those are known or matter).  Or they simply shout via CAPS, or make inane comments like “I think Ann Coulter is a dumb bimbo that whines about other peoples freedom.”  (I hate it when people forget the apostrophe – aarrgghh).  What does that last one mean, really?  I’m still not sure, even after reading it several times.

            Does the outrage about Ann Coulter’s column prove anything?  I don’t know since I didn’t read all of the outrage.  What I do know is this: regardless of how utterly absurd I believed her column to be (I already commented at Ann Coulter Knows Nil about Soccer), I also understand that she is simply writing an opinion.  As such, even though I disagree with her and still don’t find her funny, I think I’d rather have a conversation with her than Mr. “Ann is a bimbo.”

            Much of this commentary shows how poorly people think.  As a lawyer of many years, I always winced when another lawyer used significant amounts of profanity with me.  Partly this is because I long ago eschewed profanity since I didn’t think it represented Christ well.  Partly I have always wondered why such smart people, who make a living with words, couldn’t use more thoughtful language.  In any event, if lawyers, who are generally, at least in my experience, fairly intelligent, often use poor language, little wonder every day folks can’t seem to string together a couple of meaningful thoughts.  It’s just not in them.  Too much texting?  Too many bad movies?  Poor schools?  Careless parents?  All of the above?  I don’t know.

            I do know that I will defend Ann Coulter’s right to make her insipid opinions about soccer known throughout the land.  I do know that when people call her a bimbo, I’ll wince at the lackluster language skills exercised.  I do know that I’ll continue to be frustrated when people fail to use apostrophes, or fail to write complete thoughts, or use symbols as part of their writing in order to cover up their inadequate imaginations. 

            Ann Coulter is a provocateur.  She deserves whatever complaints she gets, but that’s all part of the game she is playing.  If you want to try to take her down, make your thoughts clear and understandable.  Write intelligibly.  Use logical arguments.  Offer pertinent examples.  Unfortunately, if the commentary I’ve seen is any indication, Ann Coulter may well have proved just how insanely ignorant many soccer fans really are.

The Gordon College Kerfuffle: Can we ever learn to disagree without being disagreeable?

           Recently, Gordon College sought exemption from an executive order banning employment discrimination against LBGT persons.  The reason is that Gordon College is a Christian institution which asks its employees to abstain from extra-marital sex of any kind and from homosexual sex.  Why would Gordon College do this?  Because, apparently, the people who run it actually believe in what the Bible proclaims.

            I find that one of the fundamental problems people have is they don’t truly understand what orthodox Christianity means.  What they know is the caricature they’ve been handed by many in the media and movies.  For instance, I checked the Huffington Post story and comments and found that virtually all commenters came from the same position – namely that any kind of discrimination is absolutely intolerable.  As one commenter stated “No one should be able to discriminate no matter what!”  The same commenter later stated that because of the school’s “bigotry” all its accreditation should be revoked.

            Christian orthodoxy doesn’t demand that everyone toe the Christian line.  As someone most people would label a conservative, evangelical Christian, I have no animus against anyone who wants to practice their homosexuality.  I think they’re engaging in sin, end of story.  If the government allows people to engage in homosexual behavior, so be it.  I’m not against associating with homosexuals.  I’m not against eating a meal with homosexuals, or sitting next to a homosexual on a plane, or bus, or at the movie theater, or in a restaurant.  I’m fine with a homosexual cutting my hair, doing my taxes, operating on my knee, or whatever else needs to happen in life.  If I tried to avoid doing anything that meant engaging with other sinners, I’d have to find a cave and never see another human being.  In fact, even then, I’d still be there, so I’d still be engaging with myself, a sinner saved only by the grace of God.

            Anyone who is a true Christian does not seek to harm homosexuals by ostracizing them or otherwise doing things meant to be spiteful, mean, or hateful.  What I want is for homosexuals, like any other sinners, to come to an understanding of just how fantastic the grace of God is and how spectacular life can be when one gives in to the gospel message that Jesus has paid the price for those sins through his death, burial, and resurrection. 

            The problem is the gospel message demands we confront our sins.  We must look into the mirror of our soul and see how vile and contemptible we appear when measured against the holiness of God.  As a Christian who struggles with my own temptations and my own indulgences, I seek forgiveness every day for my failures.  The beauty, however, is I know God is willing and able to forgive, and, has, in fact, forgiven me for all time.

            Generally bigotry means that someone has an irrational hatred of another person.  First, no Christian should hate homosexuals.  I don’t.  Second, my position on homosexuality is simply that it is sinful – not that homosexuals are somehow grotesque monsters on whom I should heap outrage.  Third, while non-Christians may not comprehend why I believe what I believe, is it too much to ask for the same consideration you seek from me?  The Huffington Post commenters seemed almost of one accord that anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong is automatically some kind of bigot and deserves to be scorned and treated as some sort of grotesque monster.  The irony, of course, is that this is the self-same crime of which I am accused for holding my belief – namely that I treat people badly based on what they are.

            I am a Christian.  It defines me.  If homosexuals claim their sexual orientation defines them, so be it.  However, I would ask this question: why does that self-definition matter more than mine?  How do you logically and reasonably claim as much?  This is what is happening right now with the kind of language used by so many of the Huffington Post readers.  I say we both have a right to live by our definitions, but we have to come to an understanding that accounts for both.  Isn’t that part of what it means to have religious freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of association in our country?

            When I was a child there were certain things you could say that ended an argument, liar, for instance.  But often it wasn’t that the other person lied, it was just that I didn’t agree with them.  We all knew, though, that liars didn’t deserve any respect.  So you just yelled liar loud enough until the other person gave up.  The word bigot has the same quality about it.  It’s the kind of word people use because it’s an easy way to avoid engaging in meaningful discussion about this issue.  You win because the other guy is a bigot.

            If you don’t want to talk with guys like me because you simply want to make a one word argument, then there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.  However, understand what you are ultimately doing.  You are saying that homosexuals deserve a hearing based on their self-definition of who they are, but I don’t.

            The irony is that I’m not claiming homosexuals don’t deserve to be heard, nor am I saying homosexuals deserve to be treated badly.  The opposite, however, is unfortunately not true.  Those who disagree with my view, if the comments I read are representative, don’t think I deserve to be heard and do think I deserve to be treated badly.

            Ultimately, the difference of opinion I have with so many who would claim that I’m a bigot is that my worldview and theirs are utterly different.   This clash of worldviews means that we simply will not see things the same way.  Isn’t that, however, precisely the kind of thing our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, was designed to protect?

            I offer this solution.  I will respect your right to be heard and will treat you considerately and you will do the same for me.  We can, as one old lawyer taught me many years ago, agree to disagree without being disagreeable.  Shouldn’t that be the simple answer here?

Grandma's Advice about Smoking and Global Warming

            According to Al Cross, columnist for the Louisville Courier Journal, the state of Kentucky “must face facts on science.”  He claims (without specific reference) that “97 percent of the climate-change scientists whose work has passed muster to be published in peer-reviewed journals say humans are making the earth warmer.”  Ironically, Mr. Cross never actually cites any facts about the science itself!  He just makes a claim that demands acceptance on faith.  But I have some modest issues with his claim. 

            For instant, 97 percent of how many?  There are thousands upon thousands of scientists in the world, many of whom might consider themselves “climate-change scientists” in one form or the other.  Based on Mr. Cross’ statement, he could be talking about 100 scientists, 97 of whom agree with his statement.  Worse, he might just be repeating what he’s heard others claim with no attempt to actually determine the truth of the statement or the basis for the claim.  In my experience, it is a rare thing for 97% of people to agree on much of anything, even when they’re inclined to agree with each other.  Thus, the claim sounds awfully suspicious from the start.

         What does “climate-change scientist” mean?  Does this mean someone who is sitting at a computer analyzing data and creating computer generated forecast models?  Does this mean someone who is simply gathering, reviewing, and commenting on already existing data about the climate?  Does this mean every one of these scientists has a Ph.D.?  Are they chemists, biologists, physicists, meteorologists . . . what?  Who are they and why should I trust this alleged 97%?

            The claim of passing muster to get into a peer reviewed journal sounds impressive until you find out that recently folks have written articles that passed muster even though the articles simply strung together a  bunch of scientific sounding words but had no real point and had no actual scientific meaning.  Which journals?  Who was doing the reviewing?  What were the biases and prejudices of the reviewers who passed on these so-called 97%?  If the reviewers are only looking for articles that prove global warming is man-made, then they’re likely to reject articles that claim otherwise, even if the science behind the articles suggest otherwise.

               Then there are factual problems that seem to continually plague global warming advocacy.  As one for instance, June 2014 was the coldest June ever recorded at the French Antarctic Dumont d’Urville Station.  Moreover, it was the second coldest monthly average ever recorded behind only September 1953.  It seems awfully peculiar to me that Antarctica would be experiencing record cold during global warming, but I’m sure there’s a logical, Al Gore approved explanation.  If you read French you can go to Meteo France to read the story.  Otherwise, you can go to wattsupwiththat,  a website that bills itself as the world’s most viewed website on global warming and climate change.

        In the guise of arguing based on something substantive, Mr. Cross simply throws out unsubstantiated statistics, the names of “bad” people associated with questioning global warming dogma (religious conservatives, the Koch brothers, and Republicans), and concludes global warming is just like cigarette smoking – scientifically proven to be bad for your health.  Mr. Cross then compares global warming questioners to smokers.  Apparently, both in his mind are equally idiotic.  The difference, though, is like my grandma used to tell my dad about smoking – you might as well suck on a car’s tailpipe.  Even long before the science, my grandma understood just how stupid smoking was.  You don’t need to be a scientist to see the obvious cause and effect of the stupidity of smoking cigarettes.  Global warming isn’t so clear.

            Is global warming happening?  Maybe, maybe not.  Are humans adding to global warming?  Maybe, maybe not.  Is global warming a bad thing?  Maybe, maybe not.  Mr. Cross, however, uses sloppy tactics in his effort to convince: glittering generalities, guilt by association, and bad analogies.  Why not, rather, offer up a rational, substance based argument?

            My biggest problem with global warming is the very fact that people claim they know what to do about something that is, well, global.  As sin-stained human beings, we often find our days filled with plenty of evil, much of it often self-inflicted, so that we’re just glad to get through each day without disaster.  Something on a global scale seems awfully difficult to comprehend when I still don’t always understand my wife of almost 30 years!  When I read about global warming, I’d like more than the kind of vacuous arguments offered by Mr. Cross.  I could be convinced, but most of the time I’m treated to “the earth has a temperature” kind of nonsense spouted by Al Gore and I’m told I’m an idiot for failing to believe.   Sorry, but pesky facts, like last winter’s polar vortex in the United States, and the record Antarctic lows make me wonder.

            If the solutions offered by Al Gore and crowd didn’t seem so obviously determined to create a world controlled by a few elites who “know better” I might feel more comfortable with global warming alarmism.  However, tactics like those Mr. Cross offers suggest someone more interested in making political points and, frankly, pushing power in a certain direction, than actually doing something meaningful about the alleged problem.  Seems to me that if we have a true problem, then seeking solutions from all concerned makes sense.  However, the global warming crowd, like Mr. Cross, demand that only their solutions are appropriate.  If you violate the dogma that we need to stop using coal, oil, and nuclear power, you get a scarlet D (for denier) on your breast.  It doesn’t matter how sensible or reasonable your suggestions might be.  You are only allowed one opinion in this instance: global warming is real and we must stop using coal, oil, and nuclear energy immediately if not sooner.

            As a Christian, I believe we should exercise proper stewardship over the resources God has placed at our disposal.  Stewardship, however, means using resources wisely, not ignoring resources out of fear.  Why is it not possible to use coal, oil, and nuclear power wisely?  If we can find better, more efficient ways to produce energy, wonderful.  In the meantime, should we not seek to use what we have, and use it well?  If the earth is warming, perhaps it makes more sense to figure how to best harness that reality than claim we need to try to stop it.  Seems to me a simplistic idea, but doesn’t a warmer earth mean longer growing seasons for vegetables, for instance?  So let's grow more food and feed a hungry world.  Doesn’t it also mean less people freezing to death in the winter?  So we'll use less natural gas, oil, and electricity heating our homes.  Aren’t those good things?

            If global warming is real, the arguments people like Mr. Cross are making only serve to undermine the claim.  Make real arguments and guys like me, who are wearing a scarlet D on their chest, might come around.  In the meantime, I’ll avoid sucking on the tailpipes of any cars but I’ll keep driving my SUV.  Thanks, Grandma.