America's Lost Middle Ground - originally posted in 2017

 

America has lost its middle ground.

As a result, no one truly talks anymore.

I have a friend with whom I conversed often regarding issues upon which we had significant disagreements, politically, socially, and theologically.  Yet, while some of our exchanges were certainly impassioned, neither of us ever felt the other was any less a friend.  Speaking for myself, I would do pretty much anything this friend asked of me.  I believe he would feel the same about me.

I am a Christian – my friend is agnostic.  I am socially conservative – my friend is socially liberal.  I generally vote Republican – my friend generally votes Democrat.  I like to read mostly non-fiction – my friend prefers fiction.

How then could we ever manage to get along?  Middle ground.

Don’t misunderstand me – I’m not talking about middle ground in the sense of either of us giving up our sincerely held beliefs about anything.  I’m talking about the two of us finding certain things upon which we could agree and using those as a springboard for recognizing that whatever our differences, we could, nonetheless engage in a civil conversation.  Interestingly, often we found our differences were not nearly as profound as might appear.

For instance, we might not agree on the best way to relieve poverty, but we both accepted the general notion that relieving poverty, locally, nationally, and internationally was a laudable goal.  Middle ground.

We didn’t agree on whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do back during the Bush years, but we both agreed that those who brought down the Twin Towers needed to be brought to  justice, including any state that may have participated or helped in financing, planning or executing the attack.  Middle ground.

Does this mean I softened any of my Christian beliefs in order to keep my friend happy?  Not at all.  In fact, in an ironic way, our friendship did nothing but strengthen my Christian commitment.  He made me think more carefully and more profoundly about why I believe what I believe and why Christianity makes sense.  I suspect I made him think more carefully and profoundly about his agnosticism.  Middle ground.

You see we accepted and tolerated each other’s differences, as deep as they sometimes were, knowing that there was mutual respect and, yes, even love for the other.  We didn’t have to agree on everything to be friends.   In fact, our differences often made for some of our most enjoyable discussions.  Middle ground.

Along the way we found out there were some things we did agree on wholeheartedly.  Our college alma mater’s football team was a source of much discussion, enjoyment and heartache.  We both love soccer and both understand that the US will have a hard time fielding a great international team until it changes much about its entire structure of developing soccer players.  As lawyers, we both acknowledged justice was often less glorious than people believe and frequently a matter of time and chance rather than truth and law.  As men married for many years, we both recognized that figuring out our wives was still sometime mysterious, but we were nonetheless pleased who our wives were.  We both enjoyed a good cup of coffee in the morning and neither of us was afraid to eat a hamburger once in a while.  Middle ground.

The middle ground doesn’t mean that I quit being who I am and you quit being who you are.  What it does mean is that we recognize a common humanity.  What it does mean is we recognize that we are all fallible.  What it does mean is we act graciously towards others, even when we have disagreements.

My sense is that much of our current public upheaval has less to do with real divisions in our country and more to do with a complete unwillingness to recognize that differences need not end relationships.  For crying out loud, as much as I love my wife, I don’t want her to be a mirror image of me!  That would be exceedingly boring. 

Until we determine as a society that we are going to reclaim that middle ground, then the current divisions and distrust will continue to run unabated.

There are many who thrive on this division and distrust and ironically, many of the most vitriolic purveyors of this division and distrust are those who claim most loudly that it is the other side which is causing it all.  I could name names and you’d nod your head in agreement.  My sense is many of us (most?) find all this unpalatable and unappetizing.  We long for a willingness among our political, social, and spiritual leaders to reclaim that middle ground.

What this means is that even though I think Bill Maher is going to hell because of his atheism, it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have a cup of coffee with him and talk about whatever was on his mind.  What it doesn’t mean is that I would soften my views on abortion or gay marriage or belief that Jesus was God in the flesh to somehow get him to warm up to me.  I wouldn’t demand he soften his views on any of those issues either.  That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t try to persuade him to change and I wouldn’t take offense at him attempting to persuade me to change.

As I recently told a friend who has a habit of using profanity, which I simply don’t do, I don’t take offense as long as he’s not intending for the profanity to offend me.  I don’t mind telling him I don’t care for profanity, but I’m not letting that stop me from engaging with him, even on issues over which we might not agree. 

The middle ground doesn’t mean any of us give up our convictions.  The middle ground does mean we give up our right to be offended that others have convictions different from ours.  The middle ground doesn’t mean we don’t debate vociferously for what we believe is true.  The middle ground does mean that after the debate we acknowledge the other’s humanity and recognize none of us knows everything (or are even close).  The middle ground doesn’t mean there aren’t winners and losers.  The middle ground does mean we stop acting like sore winners and sore losers.

Perhaps it’s gone forever?  Probably I’m engaged in a pipe dream.  Still, here’s to hoping those of us who believe in the middle ground will reach out and claim it again.

Ravi Zacharias - A Different Take

I have waited a while to comment here, not because I didn’t have thoughts when the information about Ravi Zacharias came out, but because time tends to allow for more reasoned reflection.  Initial disclaimer: Nothing I offer in this post is a defense of what Ravi Zacharias did.

Ravi Zacharias was a self-described Christian philosopher and apologist. His speaking engagements covered the world. He wrote numerous books. Both his speaking and writing helped many recognize their faith could be reasonable and rational.  I certainly enjoyed listening to his radio show, talks on YouTube, and reading several of his books.

Yet, recent revelations indicate Ravi was living a double life. He was apparently having sexual encounters of various kinds with women who were not his wife.  He had numerous explicit photographs on his phone(s) of women in various stages of undress. His phone(s) contained text messages that no Christian man should have created or received.  

Never mind how this could be, as any Christian should already know the answer: SIN. We all have proclivities and we all know where our weak spots are. But we sure love to see someone like Ravi fall.  Why?

Because we all know that the danger of sin isn’t in its danger, it’s in its desirability.  There was an old television commercial trying to get people to stay away from drugs that said something like the following: no kid ever says they’re going to grow up to be a heroin addict.  While true, it avoids the underlying issue: people use drugs, certainly at least initially, because they like the way it makes them feel.  No Christian seeks out sin because it’s sin; no, rather, Christians this side of heaven seek out sin because they like it. In Ravi’s case he apparently craved sexual gratification.

Is it okay that Ravi did the things he did? Of course not. He violated the commandments against looking at women lustfully and against committing adultery. No Christian can justify his conduct under any circumstances.

What troubles me, however, is that the women who engaged in these behaviors with Ravi are given a pass, even by Christians.  The reporting on Ravi’s conduct indicates that almost all [and maybe all] of his sexual encounters were voluntary – apparently some of the women he approached told him no and he accepted their response. One woman says he raped her. That may well be true and, if true, would indicate depravity of a heightened order. Given the reporting thus far, the rape allegation seems strained, especially given that Ravi was apparently willing to accept no as an answer to his sexual requests from others.

More importantly, however, we have a situation in which the women are uniformly portrayed as victims. Yet, we know many of them actively and willingly performed sexual favors for him, perhaps for money, perhaps in exchange for promises of some sort (kept or unkept we don’t know). This is most certainly not victimization. To treat adult women as if they have no volition whatsoever smacks of the very kind of treatment feminists, including the evangelical variety, deplore.

Again, and I can’t say this enough, I’m NOT defending Ravi’s actions.

But, and yes, there is a but, when will we stop pretending that women are utterly virtuous and without sin and volition? From what I read, many of the women involved performed sexual favors in exchange for money. If that is the case, are you seriously willing to accept the pathetically unlikely view that Ravi was the sole patron who did this? If so, you are living in a world where unicorns and fairies constantly dot the landscape. Guess what? Women who will perform sexual favors for money have a name: prostitutes. 

I understand what I am writing doesn’t fit within the spirit of this age.  Whenever someone does what Ravi did we love to immediately pile on, often viciously.  Ironically, however, at least for Christians, the this piling on smacks of the very kind of holier-than-thou attitude all of us routinely condemn. (Yes, I get the irony that arises in writing these words).

When will we accept that conforming ourselves to Christ is a lifelong task, not a momentary obtaining of some sort of salvific salve that immediately heals all wounds and fixes whatever ails us?  Nothing in Scripture tells us once we’re saved we suddenly become perfect and never sin again.  Quite the contrary, again and again we’re told to work on ourselves – we have a responsibility to engage in spiritual disciplines designed for our good and God’s glory.  Let us seek out Christ-likeness day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute.

Ravi Zacharias failed miserably in conforming himself to Christ.  I suspect (knowing my own propensity for intellectualizing things) that part of his problem was Christianity was more of an intellectual problem for him to solve than it was an all-encompassing means of living his life.  As a consequence, he likely neglected his responsibility to engage in spiritual disciplines as effectively as he should have and no doubt could have.  Perhaps it was, in part, ego, given his notoriety.  Perhaps Ravi Zacharias ought to have had, but did not have, someone close who had permission to throw cold water on the hot ego from time to time?

What about church attendance?  As a bible teacher for roughly 30 years, I have told people that if they will just read their bible regularly, pray regularly, and attend church regularly, they’ve gone a long way towards managing the Christian life well.  One has to conclude Ravi Zacharias wasn’t attending church regularly as he wasn’t at home regularly. 

One might then reasonably ask: did he truly read his Bible and pray as often as he should have?  Why weren’t there brothers and sisters prompting him and asking him these questions?

Ravi sinned and he sinned in serious ways.  So did many of the women with whom he engaged in his activities. This isn’t a man vs. woman thing.  This is a “but for the grace of God there go I” thing.  Are we not all sinners?  There are only two kinds of people, really: sinners who’ve been saved by the grace of God (Eph. 2:8-9) and sinners who have not been saved by the grace of God.  Maybe it’s time we all acknowledged this reality.  Rather than unceremoniously cancelling Ravi Zacharias, maybe it’s time we all gave ourselves a good look in the mirror.  I will agree it starts with me.

 

 

Guns and Young Men: It's a theological problem not a gun problem

I wrote this after the Parkland shooting in Florida.  I'm re-posting it because we still don't perceive the real problem.

The school shooting in Uvalde, Texas has once again ignited the standard debate that erupts after these events.  One side screams that if you don’t want to get rid of guns immediately, you don’t care about the children.  The other side claims that any gun control will immediately result in the United States spiraling into absolute totalitarianism.  Both arguments are irrational; both are, simply put, dead wrong.

I believe in private ownership of guns because of the 2^nd Amendment, just like I believe in free speech and freedom to exercise my religion because of the 1^st Amendment.  However, just as there are limits on the 1^st Amendment freedoms (for instance, I can’t use my free speech or my freedom to exercise my religion to defraud or defame someone) there can be appropriate limitations on gun ownership.  I guess you could say I take a middle of the road approach.

I could cite plenty of numbers to back up a reasoned argument that gun deaths are an insignificant portion of deaths among teenagers and children [you can review the CDC numbers on such deaths for yourself  here.]  When you combine those numbers with the number of children in schools across the nation it becomes clear, via simple math, that there is no school shooting epidemic that requires instant and drastic intervention.  See the NCES numbers here.   What the numbers suggest is that it is irrational for a parent or a child to fear there is anything more than an infinitesimal chance that child will ever die in a school shooting or even be present when a school shooting takes place.  This is much like the very irrational fear that flying in an airliner is at all likely to result in death (there were ZERO deaths from airliner crashes in 2017, across the entire world).[1] 

I fully understand it is no consolation to a grieving parent, family member or friend to know your child's death was a relatively unlikely occurrence.  Nor am I, by citing these statistics and numbers, attempting to make light of any child's death.  Far from it, I believe each one of these children was a soul made in the image of the God of the universe and, for that reason, had value, meaning and purpose imbued into their very existence.

If people truly want to figure out how to minimize these school shootings, the question we should be asking isn’t about guns, but about why these young men make the choice to go on these rampages.  I believe the answer lies in what we teach them about who and what they are.

Our society has for many years promoted a materialist understanding of reality.  By this I refer to the view that the material universe is, as Carl Sagan liked to famously point out, “all there ever was, all there is and all there ever will be.”  There is no room for the supernatural and very little room for religion of any kind.  As a consequence, our public school students, in particular, learn from the time they are very young that they are nothing but animals – higher order animals to be sure, but animals nonetheless.  Oh you can fantasize about being “stardust” and get all jittery and spine-tingly about it, but the consequence of this belief system results in an understanding, learned all too well, especially by testosterone laden young men, that human life has no true meaning, value, or purpose.  We are merely cosmic protoplasm that has developed for no particular reason into human animals due to forces that operate without any morals, standards, or design.  Thus, since we have no intrinsic value, meaning or purpose, young men have nothing restraining them from engaging in these kinds of acts.  Moreover, this nihilistic tendency absolutely follows from such a dim and dark view of reality. Rather than asking why these shootings happen, we should really be asking why don’t they happen more often. 

Until we are prepared to acknowledge this reality, we will never get a handle on the school shooting problem.  If we keep teaching our children that they’re nothing more than an accidental blip in the evolutionary ladder, our young men will continue to believe their lives have no meaning, value, or purpose.  Once they imbibe this teaching, particularly young men who have no influences outside school to give them some counter-balancing, we’ll continue to get school shootings.  Or go ahead and take guns away and you’ll get kids crashing cars into crowds of students or kids using knives or baseball bats or making homemade bombs or finding other inventive ways to take lives.  It’s not a gun question; it’s a moral, philosophical and, most importantly, theological question.

There is, of course, an obvious way out.  Allow students freedom to use their 1^st amendment rights to actually “exercise” their religion.  That would mean that, yes, some students would actually proselytize others.  But it also means that many Christian students and teachers would seek ways to engage students with kindness and generosity and acceptance.  They would be allowed to actually pray for them while on school grounds without fear of reprimand.  They would be allowed to actually speak the name of Jesus or read the bible to others.

I’ll ask the question I asked a friend of mine years ago when he claimed religion didn’t belong in schools: what are you afraid of?  Are you worried that kids will become Christians and will suddenly start treating each other with greater kindness and respect and dignity.  Oh, how awful that would be. 

I can hear the cacophony of “but what about homosexuality and transgenders – you Christians are bigoted, misogynist, et ceteras when it comes to those things.  How can we trust you to treat young men right?  We don’t feel like you treat us with kindness, respect, and dignity.”  Some who claim the name of Christ are not always sensitive about how they present the gospel message; this is true.  Yet, Jesus met a woman at a well who was a sexual sinner of significant magnitude and he called her out on it.  He wasn’t mean, nor did he dwell on her sin.  But he didn’t hide from it, either.  As Christians we have an obligation to explain what the Bible teaches, even when it’s unpopular.  The Bible teaches that everyone, including lost young men, lost homosexuals, and lost transgenders have value, meaning and purpose and that all who call on the name of Christ will be saved.  It is absolutely necessary that Christians explain what sin looks like, just as Jesus did with the woman at the well and it should be done with reserve and respect.  But until someone recognizes they are a sinner, just like every other human who has ever lived, save Jesus, they will never see the need to call on the name of Christ. Those who claim the message is bigoted, etc. need to take that up with the God of the universe – he inspired the writing of the book such that it would say what it says.  No man simply wrote what was on his mind.

This is incredibly important to understand because Christianity teaches, Jesus teaches, the Bible teaches, that all people are meaningful, purposeful, and valuable.  The secular materialist viewpoint teaches people have the value assigned to them by society’s whims.  Don’t get me wrong, Christian beliefs won’t inoculate the schools from ever seeing another school shooting.  But it would sure go a long way toward teaching these young men that their lives and other’s lives are worth something.  It’s really hard to randomly start killing people if you think they’re something more than just a mere animal.  It’s even harder to do if you believe your own life has value, meaning, and purpose.  But as long as we continue to teach children they come from primordial slime, they’ll keep growing up to act like the slime they’ve been told they are.

---

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aviation-safety/2017-safest-year-on-record-for-commercial-passenger-air-travel-groups-idUSKBN1EQ17L

 

An Open Letter to the signers of the "Pro-Life" Open Letter to Lawmakers

An alarm goes off.   I wake up.  I put my feet on the floor.  I go into the bathroom and take a shower.  I get dressed.  I go downstairs, make coffee, prepare my lunch for the day, then make my breakfast.  I eat my breakfast.  I read my Bible or watch a video or simply sit quietly contemplating various matters or praying.

I finish my breakfast, take care of my dishes, brush my teeth, and leave my house.  This often involves me putting on my home alarm.  It definitely involves me locking my door as I leave.

Note what happened here: I engaged in approximately 16 volitional acts before walking out of my door.

Yes, the act of an abortion frequently contains its own significant psychological punishment.  I had a friend who confessed to me he and his then girlfriend had, at one time, procured an abortion, and he (not just her) was still feeling the overwhelming guilt the act had engendered in him. Feeling that guilt, shame, and emotional trauma does not mean, however, a woman who procures the death of her baby has no culpability.  She has to take numerous steps before she gets the abortion clinic (or obtains an abortion pill prescription) and, even upon arrival, remains in control of the decision until right before it happens (or until she takes the pill).  To argue “women are victims of abortion” as the “Open Letter to Lawmakers” signed by numerous pro-life agencies does, is not correct. 

I am not in favor of significant criminalization for a woman who has an abortion.  The emotional impact is often enormous and gut wrenching.  But if I happen to have a certain blood alcohol level, even though it isn’t truly impacting my driving, and I’m involved in a traffic accident where I inadvertently strike a pedestrian and kill them, I can be held accountable and may be found guilty of the felony of involuntary manslaughter.  This is true no matter what my motives, or my lack of intent, or even if I’ve never been intoxicated before in my life.  In addition, I will feel the guilt of that death the rest of my life.  No one would reasonably refer to me as a victim.

There is an irony that because my BAC in the prior example is 0.081 instead of 0.079 I am suddenly deemed a potential felon, despite having no intent to harm whatsoever, whereas some within the current evangelical intelligentsia seem to think a woman who has taken active steps to intentionally procure someone else’s death has no culpability.  Just because someone feels guilty and badly about doing something awful doesn’t turn them into a victim.  Just because someone has listened to bad advice or had their conscience seared by popular culture doesn’t absolve them of responsibility for their actions.  A woman who procures an abortion has to take numerous volitional steps to get there and should have some consequences for killing her child.  Laws can be written to take the circumstances of the abortion into account in order to make the punishment fit the crime, should a woman procure an illegal abortion.

Treating a woman who has had an abortion as merely a victim (regardless of the legality of the abortion) is, oddly and ironically, stripping her of dignity, rather than helping her – much like the person who acts as an enabler to someone else’s addiction or other bad actions.  The open letter to lawmakers proclaims abortion is evil.  A willing participant in an evil should repent of it.  Forcing the woman to account for what she’s done beyond simply acknowledging her pain is not merely appropriate but necessary for her to recognize the moral indecency of her actions and repent of them.  If she’s just another victim, then she has no moral obligations and therefore no repentance to make.  Failing to permit her to repent by telling her she is just as much a victim and has no accounting for it whatsoever fails her in a most egregious way.  Frankly, this is as equally despicable as simply labeling her a murderer and acting as if she deserves no sympathy or concern.

The ”victim” position is out of touch with Scripture, as well.  Jesus told the invalid at the pool of Bethesda and the woman caught in adultery to “sin no more.” (John Ch. 5 and John Ch. 8).  Should not the woman who has procured an abortion, which the letter labels as an evil, be told to “sin no more?”  Isn’t the whole point of repentance the relief of placing that burden at the cross where it can be properly and permanently dealt with?  The letter’s position is taking this joy away from a woman who has had an abortion.  Does God not know what’s best for her?  The letter claims to be a Christian response – frankly, I’m not sure the signers have fully considered the good it often does for someone to face outside consequences of their sinful behavior. 

Perhaps there is another possibility?  First, if a woman procures an illegal abortion, both she and the other participants in the abortion (including the man who got her pregnant) should face legal consequences.  This does two things.  First, it provides a disincentive since it’s illegal.  While not everyone responds to legal restraints, many do.  That’s why our country is not completely lawless.  Most people obey the law out of fear, out of respect, or out of self-preservation.  But they obey.  So while it’s true laws don’t stop people from doing what they want (it’s illegal in every state in the United States to commit murder, but murders still happen), for many people the cost/benefit analysis of committing the crime typically weighs against the crime.

Second, it creates an incentive for people to exercise some restraint and forethought.  If I know I’m prone to letting my temper get out of control but I don’t want to ever kill anyone, I may well decide to avoid carrying around a weapon that will make it easier for me to kill someone.  The same would be true for abortion.  There are women who will decide not to engage in risky sexual ventures because the idea of becoming pregnant and possibly needing an illegal abortion outweighs the value of the sexual encounter.  There are men who will decide it’s not worth it to take the gamble, as well.

Third, if the punishment for the abortionist is significantly higher than that for the woman and other abortion procurers (husbands, boyfriends, parents, etc.) that will create significant disincentives for health care providers to offer such services.  I would urge voluntary manslaughter (a very serious felony) or higher for the abortionist and some non-felony offense for the woman and others involved in procuring the abortion (heavy on fines, modest or no jail time, lengthy probation, and significant community service). 

I know this scheme will infuriate many.  Offer other solutions.  I’m just trying to get a reasoned conversation started.  Clearly, the “pro-life” movement isn’t willing to have the conversation at all.  Denny Burk Appealing to Southern Baptists.