Post Harvey Weinstein - Do Feminists Owe Mike Pence an Apology?

Earlier this year there was a media firestorm about Mike Pence’s “rules” for his engagement with women who are not his wife.  Waaaaaaay back then (a mere, what, six months ago?), feminists crushed him for his “anti-woman” ways.  Soraya Chemaly at the Huffington Post for one:   Mike Pence is why we should stop excusing religious sexism.  In light of the current Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Judge Roy Moore, and numerous politicians in Washington sexual scandals, where are the apologies, the mea culpas, or at least some sort of well, gosh, gee-wiz, maybe just maybe there’s at least some slim possibility that what  Mike Pence has been doing for years actually WORKS!!!!

Here’s what Soraya Chemaly has had to say about Pence now:  What School Dress Codes have to do with Harvey Weinstein.   Oh wait, no, that’s her explanation of why school dress codes are part of the reason society objectifies women.  What has she said about Pence’s rule . . . . . . . . . . .

Do you hear the crickets chirping?  Is hell freezing over?  White noise? [Insert your own favorite cliché here].  She has said absolutely NOTHING.

Nor will she.  Hopefully you are asking, why won’t she?  Because she’s at least smart enough to realize that if she tries to talk about Pence right now she’ll have to twist herself into a kind of word pretzel that will defy all rationality.

Ms. Chemaly and others like her see the world through a hyper-feminist lens.  Everything, everything, everything (did I mention everything?) revolves around almost all men (with rare exception) doing everything they can to dominate women and keep them down.  Sure, some men have moments where they “get it” but for the  most part men are simply sperm machines who really fulfill no other function.  In Ms. Chemaly’s world almost all men spend their time figuring out ways to keep women oppressed and objectified.  So Ms. Chemaly can, in all seriousness, claim that school dress codes are nothing more than a part of the male domination machine designed to keep girls in their place. 

The broader point here is inescapable.  Ms. Chemaly and those who think like her have fallen into a most bizarre place morally.  Mike Pence is a cad because he goes out of his way to avoid situations which might tempt him or a woman who is with him and is not his wife to see each other in a romantic and/or sexual light.  Seems to me every feminist ought to be on board with guys exercising whatever means are required to keep things on the level.  But this is not good enough for the Ms. Chemaly’s of the world.  No, apparently men must actually put themselves into positions to be tempted then never give into temptation to prove their worth.  So when a guy like Harvey Weinstein takes advantage of his power and obtains sexual favors from women in exchange for movie roles, it’s just proof that men can’t be trusted and are simply power hungry and care only about using or abusing women for their own ends. Both men are wrong and morally bankrupt in Ms. Chemaly’s world.

Here’s the problem: the man Ms. Chemaly (and I presume others like her) seeks doesn’t exist.  She’s living in some fantasy world where biology simply doesn’t matter.  So, I guess (I don’t know) Ms. Chemaly would be okay with a voluptuous teenage girl showing up at school in a halter top and shorts which cover only part of her derriere?  Teenage guys are then, I guess, just supposed to “exercise self-control” and avoid thinking even one sexually charged thought when they see this young woman?  Look – from a biblical standpoint I would urge all young men to get away from such a young woman as quickly as possible in order to avoid temptation – even the temptation of just thinking about her in a sexual way.  But the bizarre rub is that Ms. Chemaly apparently (again, I don’t know) would argue that’s not what young men should do.  I guess she would argue they should feast their eyes on this young woman, all the while simply thinking about . . . I dunno  Baseball?  Apple pie?  Chevrolets?  Even secular thinkers get that biology just doesn’t work that way.

The bible tells us to “flee” from sexual immorality.  Paul told early Christians it was better to get married than to burn in sexual lust because he knew the result would be immoral behavior (consensual or otherwise). 

So Mike Pence is “fleeing” because it’s a solid answer to the problem of lust.  It’s an actual recognition that women deserve better treatment than to be seen as sexual objects.  It doesn’t mean that every woman Mike Pence sees is somehow mere eye candy.  What it does mean is he holds women in sufficient regard, including most especially his wife, that he doesn’t want to put anyone in an uncomfortable or compromising position. 

Harvey Weinstein, on the other hand, has no such scruples and gave into his biological “burning.”  He deserves the scorn he is receiving.  It is worth noting that some of Weinstein’s victims engaged in quid pro quo consensual acts.  This does not justify Weinstein’s conduct, but, yes, it does call into question the morality of the women who engaged in such acts.  I get there was pressure to say yes, but at some level isn’t this just the reverse of the very kind of argumentation Ms. Chemaly makes about how men should just “control themselves?”  Shouldn’t women just say no at that point and walk away?  Or is it morally acceptable to voluntarily give into sexual predation to get the job, then complain about voluntarily giving into sexual predation to get the job?  This kind of thing doesn’t happen in the Mike Pence scenario. Hmmm.

In an ideal world none of this would be an issue. But we do not live in an ideal world and, here’s the problem for Ms. Chemaly and her hyper feminist true believers: we will not live in such a world until Jesus returns.  In the meantime, sin rules the day and the best we can do is find ways to work around it.  Ways that work.  Maybe the way Mike Pence does it?

Am I Racist to Pray for Racists?

My wife and I have been talking about the fallout from the Charlottesville mess.  We both agree the white supremacists are morally wrong.  We are both concerned about our inability to talk about anything as a nation.

It’s so easy to pick on racists because it’s such an obvious and unpleasant sin to be racist.  But Jesus said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.  Matthew 5:44 – 45.  Since I obviously haven’t read every tweet or every blog post or every commentary, maybe some Southern Baptist leader has mentioned this.  I have not seen it.  All I’ve seen is condemnation of racist attitudes.  I get this is a sore spot for Southern Baptists and such attitudes are rightly condemned as unbiblical.  But have we forgotten the words of Jesus?

We don’t pray for these people because they’re so easy to condemn.  We don’t pray for them because we don’t want to be accused of racism.  We don’t pray for them because their sins are “worse” than others somehow.  We don’t pray for them because we don’t want God to put any of them in our path so that we’ll have to interact with them.

Paul wrote in Romans 3:10 that there are none who are righteous, no not one.  None righteous includes me and it includes you.  Our righteousness is found only in Christ, right?  Not in right thinking, not in right works, not in right political views, not in right “confession” but in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross and that alone.  At least that’s what I’ve been taught at seminary the past (too many!) years.

So I implore the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention – can we please start talking about praying for these lost souls?  Can we stop acting as if they’re beyond the saving power of God’s grace?  Shouldn’t someone (I guess maybe by saying it I’m volunteering?) start some kind of resource for Nazis, KKK members, White Supremacists to learn the truth of the Gospel message so they, too, can be saved? 

Let’s face it folks ­– it’s appropriate to be against racism, but boy is it easy.  It’s something we can all agree on, even when we don’t agree on other very important issues.  I disagree with people from the Church of Christ who think God is speaking today in such a way that homosexuality has become acceptable to Him; but we can agree racism is wrong. 

We have to be very, very careful that the gospel message doesn’t become something only for non-racists.  I have heard Dr. Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary say the gospel should be preached “promiscuously.”  Seems to me that includes racists hearing the gospel.  What else is going to change them?

Part of the reason, I think, we as a country are having such a hard time talking about this matter is because we, including most Christians, see racism as a social evil to be combatted by education and by political action.  Racism is a matter of the heart, not of the mind, and can’t be changed by making it against the law.  Rape and murder are against the law, but keep happening on a regular basis.  Why?  Because rapists and murderers, at least to some extent, see their victims as things, not as fellow travelers through this sin infested life.  Education won’t solve racism because we’ve been treated to years and years and years of “free” public education without seeing racism dry up and go away.  Having knowledge doesn’t equate to empathizing or sympathizing with your fellow human being.  In fact, one might well argue that our morally sterile educational system is part of the reason we are seeing a rise in those who are very publically racist. 

My dad brought me up to understand that you judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin.  He was clearly borrowing from Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  According to Galatians 3:28 there is “neither Jew nor Greek” in Christ.  The description of worship in heaven that we get in Revelation talks about every tribe, every nation, every tongue glorifying God.  We clearly won’t find racism in heaven.  Racism, as I have said on this blog and elsewhere is wrong.  Done.

Yet, there will be former KKK members, former Nazis and former white supremacists in heaven because the gospel is the power to change hearts.  It is the only way to do so.

A while back I suggested the only way we could seriously dent Muslim terrorism was by trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.  The same is true for the deluded fools who think racism is acceptable.

I am going to commit to praying every day for the next forty days that God will show me how best to witness to racists like the ones who gathered in Charlottesville last week.  I’ll finish up on September 30 and let’s see where God might lead.

Will you join me in prayer for these poor souls who need Christ?

Or does it make me a racist to pray for them?  Be very, very careful how you answer that question if you say you’re a Christian.

Iceland's "Enlightened" Method for Reducing Down's Syndrome

Rather than get caught up in the storm that erupted after the Charlottesville incident, I want to focus on something equally as malignant, but which receives blessing after blessing from people around the so-called “civilized” world.

Recently, reports have come out of Iceland that it has all but eliminated Downs Syndrome from its shores.  If you aren’t careful to read past headlines, you might assume Icelandic doctors, researchers, and scientists have come up with a miraculous way to insure babies don’t develop the extra chromosome which causes Downs. 

Not so fast.

Iceland is seeing less and less of children with Downs because its citizens are deciding to abort babies who test positive for Downs while in the womb.  This should outrage and disgust anyone with a conscience for at least three reasons.  First, no testing is always correct, which means some of these children wouldn’t have Downs Syndrome and are still being aborted because prospective parents would rather kill off an “acceptable” child than take the chance of an “unacceptable” child.  What kind of human being feels that way about their flesh and blood?  Second, and more disturbing, it’s a short leap from aborting Downs Syndrome children to aborting children for things like red hair.  In other words, there is a scary, Hitlerian, master race overtone here.  Third, and most disturbing, there is an arrogance here that human beings have some kind of control of the world.

When are we going to recognize that our “control” is an illusion?  The world operates all around us whether we wake up in the morning , whether we get in our cars and go to work, whether we sing, pray, read, watch television, blog, play sports, exercise, take medicine or do anything.  The writer of Ecclesiastes understood this principle very well when writing “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.”  Ecclesiastes 3:1.  More:  “Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to men of skill but time and chance happen to them all.”   Ecclesiastes 9:11. 

Icelanders may think they’re doing humanity some sort of service by eliminating Downs Syndrome babies but what they’re really doing is trying to control the uncontrollable.  God retains rights over his planet.  He will do as he will and no one in Iceland can stop it.   If God wants more Downs Syndrome babies, he’ll find other people to have them and love them.

The irony is of course that when people engage in this sort of behavior it’s always done in the name of decency and kindness.  Hmm.  Decency and kindness to whom?  The child who was just killed?  I read an article about this in which one Icelandic woman referred to these precious souls as “things.”  Her word, not mine.  Really?  What then does that make this woman other than a larger, born, thing?  Is that how she perceives herself and others?  I doubt it.  Do people in Iceland tell their kids “hey, you know I would have disposed of you if you had Downs Syndrome, but you got lucky and hit the chromosome jackpot.  There’s nothing special about you except that you fit the bill I was looking for.  You just happened to be a non-Downs Syndrome thing."  You know they don’t say that.

More importantly, are children mere commodities?  Is that really where we are?  In the US we have Planned Non-Parenthood selling off baby parts and decrying any effort to end abortion.  They claim what they are doing is a moral good.  In any other context, the killing of human beings would be seen as the apex of moral evil.  If I said, hey Hitler was okay to gas millions of Jews, because, after all, people are just commodities, just “things,” I would rightly be met with disgust.  For crying out loud, you can’t even get some animal rights activists to recognize the need for culling herds of deer that live within predator free metropolitan areas  - these deer are going to die from starvation or disease or being hit by cars, but let’s not kill any of them because SAY IT WITH ME NOW – YOU KNOW THE WORDS – it’s cruel.  If we care  more about deer than human babies, we know there’s a serious problem.

But killing babies who might have Downs Syndrome – that’s called eradicating Downs Syndrome in Iceland.  It sounds sensible, moral, justifiable.  In the most bizarre fashion, it’s not seen as cruel at all.  It’s enlightened.

Let’s change the scenario and think about how people would react to abortion for a different reason.  Suppose scientists finally find the elusive “gay” gene.  Suppose parents start aborting children because they don’t want gay children.  We all know precisely how that would be treated by the “enlightened.”   Of course, never mind that logically and rationally there is no difference between a parent aborting a Downs Syndrome child and a gay child.  In fact, as we launch ourselves down this path, upon what grounds could anyone argue that aborting a “thing” has any moral significance?  Either this “thing” is a human being deserving of protection or it’s not.  If it’s not, then there is no moral distinction between “things” just like there’s no moral distinction between a cardboard box and cement block.

This lets me circle right back to Hitler.  When we start treating the most vulnerable among us – children in the womb – as commodities, are we not treating them precisely as Hitler treated the Jews?  Does that not then, make us equally culpable?

Icelanders may be eradicating Downs Syndrome, but make no mistake, they’re simply doing what Hitler did.  The only difference is the age of the victims.

Resolved: The SBC should stop wringing its hands about resolutions

The Southern Baptist Convention  - my “denomination” – is wringing its hands about racism.  In 1995 the Convention officially apologized for its racist roots and racist past.  Yet, for some reason the Convention can’t let go.  The most recent issue arose when a member proposed a resolution condemning the “alt right.”

I saw comments by Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, Steve Gaines and Danny Akin, all prominent leaders, lamenting how badly the whole thing was handled by Southern Baptists.

Let’s just settle down a bit here.

First, most rank and file Southern Baptists still probably know little about what the “alt right” is.  I would guess many had no clue prior to the convention.  I spend plenty of time reading current events and trying to keep myself aware and I’m still not exactly sure what the “alt right” is at this point other than a hodge-podge of political activists who generally coalesce around white identity.  To get all riled up because Southern Baptists weren’t keen to condemn an ideology with which many were likely unfamiliar speaks more to a concern for understanding what they were being asked to condemn, rather than some sort of undertone of racism.

Second, the resolution was properly offered to the Resolutions Committee but had been properly rejected because the Committee believed it was not well drafted.  This is the Resolution Committee’s job.   I read the original resolution and it is broadly worded in places and contains rhetorical language that denounces in a tone which echoes the very tone it claims to denounce.  I would have rejected it as too harsh and too political.  To suggest, as Dr. Mohler did, that this was almost a “black eye” I think misses the mark.  Had the original resolution made clear, as the current one does, that Southern Baptists were condemning “white supremacy” it would have been accepted and would have passed with little fanfare (as it rightly did when re-worded).

Third, I am concerned it appears the person who offered the resolution got angry instead of, perhaps, rethinking the wording and determining to bring it back the next year.  Righteous indignation is rarely righteous and most often just indignant.  So he ginned up support, obtained help from some folks to figure out how to get the resolution onto the floor through the convention’s rules and stomped his foot loud enough and long enough that he got the resolution re-submitted (after it was re-worded).  Yes, it was all done according to the rules, but does that necessarily mean it was the right way to do things?  Don’t we regularly preach that “rules-following” doesn’t necessarily translate into “good Christian?” 

Fourth, I understand that the strange brew of support Donald Trump received was a big part of the rationale for this resolution.   Evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for Trump, as did members of the alt-right.  Thus the concern that everyone would be painted with the same broad brush.  I get the desire for a Southern Baptist pastor wanting to distance the convention from white supremacists and I agree wholeheartedly with that desire.  Why not say that in the first place?  The original resolution was something of a political screed instead of a simple, clear, theological position about the wrongness of the white supremacy movement.

Finally, part of the reason this looked bad was because the Convention got all wound up about appearances and worried about what the world was thinking.

The pastor who offered the original resolution is black.

This became a public relations issue instead of a theological issue.  The very reason the first resolution was likely rejected (I am not on the Committee and can’t read minds, but I can read words) was its inflammatory and, frankly, less than kind tone.  White supremacists are wrong – case closed.  However, are we not, as Christians, to pray for our enemies?  Are we not, as Christians, to love our enemies?  Should we not offer prayers as we acknowledge that we, too, can become overly critical and harsh in our assessment of other sinners?  Do we not still find ourselves sometimes sinning and in need of prayer?  Inflamed rhetoric hardly advances the gospel.

The truth is Southern Baptists already condemn racism because it’s theologically inconsistent with Scripture and we care about what the Bible says.  We should not care one bit whether the world likes us, thinks we’re right or wrong, respects us, or hates us or likes the way we conduct our business. 

So to Dr. Mohler, Dr. Moore, Dr. Akin, Dr. Gaines and other leaders I say stop the hand wringing and do what you do best – present the gospel with clarity and conviction.  Stop thinking about public relations.  We cannot undo the past with words and we do not shape the future with our words.  Let us shape the future with the words of Scripture, not the words of Rules and Resolutions.  As my wife and I tell our teenage son all the time – the reality is that no one is really paying attention to you anyway.  The world won’t care about this resolution tomorrow – but people will care that the next time there’s a disaster the SBC will be there to help them – love your neighbor (Matthew 22:39).  The world won’t care about the public relations “failure” tomorrow but a friend will care that I’m there to weep with him over a lost loved one – love your neighbor.  The world won’t care tomorrow that the SBC followed its rules but prisoners and widows and orphans will see the love of Christ when we care for them and teach them regardless of the color of their skin – love your neighbor.

Talk, as the old saying goes, is cheap.  The SBC can pass all the “appropriate” resolutions it wants – no one will care unless they see action.

Let’s pray what the world sees from us tomorrow is Christ’s love in action – not resolutions about it.