SBC Leaders: Help Me Understand Your Views on Racism

I originally posted this on August 15, 2018.  The Dallas Statement came out and I felt it best to take this down for a little while until some of the angst had faded.  I am now re-posting this in full.

This is much longer than I normally write, but I felt this needed a more lengthy discussion than usual.

I am going to write frankly about concerns I have about our understanding of racism as it relates to the Southern Baptist Convention.  I have attended Southern Baptist churches since 1978.  I was saved while attending a small Southern Baptist Church in 1981.  I have never been a member of any other kind of church.  My wife and I were married in a Southern Baptist church and both our sons were baptized in Southern Baptist churches.  I attend a Southern Baptist seminary.  One of my brothers in law was trained at a Southern Baptist seminary and is the pastor of a Southern Baptist church (with two nephews as associate pastors who both attend a   Southern Baptist seminary!).  One of my sisters spent years with the IMB in Mexico and is now married to pastor.  I could say more, but you get the point.  The roots run deep.  I don’t offer this as a suggestion that I know all things Southern Baptist, but only that I at least have some modest foundation upon which to make an argument.

I learned from a very early age that quality of character mattered but skin color did not because that is what my father taught his children.  He read widely and thoughtfully.  He thought about things deeply.  He had a “sense” about people that was often uncanny.  I never once remember him suggesting that I ever think less of someone or think more of someone based on their skin color.  Hard work and character mattered.  Treat others as you would like them to treat you.  This was how I grew up. 

Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength.  The second he said was like it: love your neighbor as yourself.  As Southern Baptists we are struggling right now, I think, to understand the second one.  I am wading into this fray deeply concerned that we’re veering off course by taking a more worldly stance rather than a biblical one.

 I’m trying to get the part of loving my neighbor which requires me to hang my head in guilt and shame for things I have not done.  I’m trying to get the part of loving my neighbor that calls upon me to feel uncomfortable in my own skin because of a genetic predisposition over which I had no control.  I’m trying to get the part of loving my neighbor which calls upon me to agree that the church is supposed to be in the business of changing societal structures.  This seems to be the tenor of recent discussions within the SBC, particularly among some leaders and important spokespersons.  Maybe I’m just misreading things or just misunderstanding what some SBC leaders seem to be saying.

I do understand the reality that merely by accident of my parents’ DNA I don’t face some obstacles that others face.  However, this doesn’t then logically compel me to conclude that this means by virtue of accident of birth I now somehow automatically live in a manner that is, ipso facto, harmful to other people.  That suggests my mere existence is an offense, regardless of my intentions, my conduct, or my character and regardless of my status with God through Christ.  The argument would go something like this:  just being white, itself, has landed you benefits you didn’t work for and the culture and system in which you live is rife with structures that harm others who aren’t white; therefore, you should repent because of this, whether you’ve acted on it or not, because regardless of what you think, you’ve somehow, in some way, at some time, under some circumstances, even if you don’t know it and are completely unaware of it, benefitted from this systemic bias.  What a peculiar argument for any Christian to make – you are white, so you need to repent, whether you’ve actually done any sinful act or not, just because of your whiteness.  I can’t and won’t believe anyone of good will within the SBC is actually arguing that merely being white is, in itself, somehow harming others or otherwise predisposing those who are white to racism, so I will move on.

The SBC has officially apologized for its part in slavery and the racial prejudice that followed the civil war, including SBC churches improperly and shamefully using the Bible as a means for engaging in racist acts against blacks in this country.  I think that is useful because it is a recognition of poor treatment of our neighbors in the past.  Yet, as I look back on my own life, there is no pattern of treating people poorly, there is no pattern of judgment against others because of skin color, there is no pattern of justifying racism, there is no pattern of offering the Bible as proof of any one ethnicity or skin color being superior to any another.  None.  Yet, the current climate in the SBC seems to be taking on the notion that somehow merely by virtue of my skin color I have done something wrong, even if only implicitly, and sometimes supposedly “unconsciously.”  In other words, if I am white, I just don’t know that I’ve done or thought bad things for which I must repent because of my whiteness – I’ve had it so good that I can’t even perceive how badly I’ve treated others, even when there’s no evidence to support the claim.  Many in SBC leadership positions seem to be leaning in this direction.  (I again say seem because I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth).

This is massively frustrating.  More importantly, though, what is the Biblical support for this kind of argumentation?  Just saying “racism is a gospel issue” doesn’t answer my question.  Yes, it’s a gospel issue in the sense that loving my neighbor means I need to present the gospel in a non-hypocritical, non-judgmental and non-racist way.  However, in the parable the man who showed mercy, who loved his neighbor, wasn’t wandering the back roads near Jericho looking for a soul to save.  He acted compassionately along the way.  He saw a need and met it without compunction.  He didn’t ask the beaten man any questions about who did this to him or why – the Good Samaritan acted by showing mercy to someone who needed mercy.  Being white doesn’t disqualify me from acting compassionately along the way, has not prevented me from doing so in the past and will not prevent me from doing so in the future.  Moreover, since we’re all equal at the foot of the cross in reference to our standing before God (Galatians 3:28), isn’t that further evidence that an overly zealous concern for ethnicity might actually take our eyes off the more important thing: the cross on which Jesus atoned for our sins?

The accident of birth being a privilege is true for me in some sense.  Being white in America is, on average, easier than being black.  That said, it is rare for anyone to be that “average” person.  There are some people with white skin in America who face struggles much greater than some who have black skin.  So, let’s be both clear and realistic; the accident of birth being a privilege cuts across the face of the planet.  By being born in the United States people automatically don’t face the same kinds of obstacles faced by people born in other significantly less developed or significantly less stable countries.  Here’s the catch:  whatever your skin color, if you are living in the United States you are noticeably better off than people living in Malawi or Syria or Venezuela.  Does merely living in the United States, in itself, harm people in Malawi, Syria or Venezuela? (NO).  Does it make you a “nationist”[1] who somehow is improperly privileged because you happened to be born in the United States? (NO).  Are you duty bound to repent of this privilege, then? (NO).  I trust anyone reading with an open mind understands the analogy here.

I am not arguing that it can’t sometimes be hard to be a black person in the United States.  Moreover, I’m not arguing that there aren’t attitudes that can creep into people’s thinking about race that cause them to make racist judgments about others based solely on skin color.  I’m certainly not saying any of this is a good thing.  I’m not claiming that isn’t important for us to all keep ourselves focused clearly on how and what we think and say and believe about others.  

I am saying that it is odd to argue some people make racist judgments about others based on skin color and those who do should repent and then argue that all white people are automatically guilty as charged.  Some of the talk in the SBC these days seems to be leaning this way – as if every white Southern Baptist is automatically guilty of something, regardless of the evidence and had better get to repenting now.   Isn’t it at least possible that some white people actually don’t make such racist judgments?  And if it is accurate to conclude at least some white people don’t do this, then wouldn’t arguing all are guilty be an incorrect judgment?  We have to stop impugning all white people as if they are a monolith of evil thoughts about their black brothers and sisters in Christ.  This simply isn’t true.  Some SBC leaders seem to be arguing this corporate guilt notion and are harming those who have never believed, talked or acted in such a manner.  Worse, it’s not biblical to demand that all must feel some kind of guilt and shame because of what other people have done.  I should feel guilt and shame for my sins, yes; for yours, no.

Note, too, the Samaritan in the parable acted without giving any thought to his and the beaten man’s social circumstances – he was more concerned about the immediate need for life giving sustenance.  Does it not smack of pharisaical rule-making to tell me that I need to spend time analyzing my “privilege” before I can be a good neighbor?  So, I guess if I want to help someone in physical, emotional or spiritual need I need to “check” my “privilege” at the door if their skin color is different than mine?  Need to get my head right first?  Need to repent of something, anything – just go ahead and admit that I’ve committed racialization or that I’ve been “racist adjacent” or some other current in vogue theory of just how bad I really am?

But what if I’m not doing those things?  What if I’m just trying to be a Christ-follower wherever I am, in whatever form that takes?  Must I repent because I am not specifically seeking out members of other races to come to my church?  Should I move my home to some other place because there are too many white people in my neighborhood?  Should I quit my job because there are too many white people at my office?  What if none of them are saved and I witness to them, does that matter? Am I required to constantly be thinking in racial terms about everything I do?  Where is the biblical mandate for me to treat people that way? 

What are you asking us to do SBC leadership?  I’m not clear because I don’t think you are, either. 

We’re getting vague platitudes and generalized statements about race relations being a “gospel” issue without much in the way of understanding why I need to drop everything and do something else.  Do the people around whom I live and work (who are mostly white and unsaved) not need the gospel?  Do I just abandon them because of their “white privilege?”  I’m not asking rhetorically, nor am I being sarcastic.  I really want answers from SBC leaders.

You see, I’m worried that we’re getting too caught up in trying to make “right” things we cannot and will not make right in this lifetime.  It’s not our job to right the wrongs of the past.  The Samaritan spent exactly NO time attempting to gain any kind of justice for his injured neighbor – he simply met the man’s need without thought of repayment.  He didn’t go back out and try to find the culprits, so he could explain to them the error of their ways.  He didn’t call out for governmental authorities to act.  He didn’t seek out leaders of the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities to fix the “Jericho Road” bandit problem.  He didn’t even try to figure out whether anyone from the “church” had failed to minister to the man.  He did what he could, with his means, as he was going along.

It’s not our job to exact penance from those who have acted poorly (vengeance is mine says the Lord).  It’s our job to make disciples (Matt. 28:19).  Ought we not to be going about that job, and as we are going, engage in acts of compassion and evangelism to all regardless of their ethnicity?  Yet, we’re talking within the SBC about “needing” more racial representation, as if this will cure some ill.  That’s just politics talking and makes us look like we’re just another secular organization trying to look good for others.  Rather, should we not, each one of us, pray for strength to do what we are supposed to do within our sphere of influence?  The ripples from a small pebble can fill a large pond.  Isn’t that kinda the point of the SBC?  In cooperation with other churches we are able to make our collected pebbles create a tidal wave of evangelistic fervor. 

Southern Baptists should be rightly concerned that there are some within the convention who are not behaving like good neighbors.  But we cannot let this cause us to start talking like the world talks, which is what we are doing when start saying things like “we need more blacks in leadership positions.”  That kind of statement is, itself, a subtle form of racism which has no place in the church, as it implies skin color somehow matters for such purposes and, worse, implies a sort of noblesse oblige that suggests us “white folk” need to bring in some blacks for publicity purposes.  From what passages in the Bible does one conclude it matters what color the skin of the leaders is?  Again, I’m not asking rhetorically – I’m not aware of such passages, so I really want an answer.

I’ve seen arguments from people claiming that what I am saying is not just wrongheaded but immoral because we can’t wait for things to move organically.  Oh, really?  We can’t depend on God to move us?  We can’t depend on the strength of the God of the universe to fire our imaginations and our actions and to galvanize us?  In other words, if we don’t do something about racial stuff, then nothing will ever happen.  And we better do it now because, well, the SBC is shrinking and we’re not leaving the right legacy, and Revelation 7:9 for crying out loud!!!  Hmm.  God’s not sufficient, so we better help him along?

I’m not saying do nothing.  I am saying we’re not focused properly.

It appears we’re not focused on the cross; we’re not focused on the resurrection; we’re not focused on the final commandment Christ gave us (make disciples); rather, we’re focused on whether we need more people of different ethnicity to comprise the leadership and rank and file of the SBC.  It’s not that it’s inherently bad to want to see the SBC look more like the people in the United States – it is inherently bad to make that your goal because it’s too shallow and too limited and, frankly, unbiblical.

There are some who are suggesting the entire culture is infected with a systemic but often barely perceptible, or even imperceptible, racism.  Southern Baptists aren’t going to fix this by making a few appointments of blacks into positions of importance within the convention.  More importantly, the implication here is that white Southern Baptists are unknowingly participating in this system (I understand this sometimes goes by the term “racialization” and sometimes “unconscious racism”) and need to be awakened to it and repent of it.  The problem with this way of thinking is that it goes well beyond the SBC.  If our entire society suffers from this often-imperceptible malady how do we suppose the SBC is going to fix it?  Where, by the way, do we read in Scripture that our job as a church is to fix social problems?  I have always understood our primary focus is to make disciples.  Once we make disciples, does that not then have the possibility of changing the culture from the ground up?  Christianity was never intended to be a top down social movement, right?  Isn’t that the criticism so many of us more conservative types have of the “social” gospel started in the late 19^th and early 20^th century?

As we have been told repeatedly recently by various folks in the wake of the Paige Patterson matter, the SBC isn’t a church and therefore not bound by requirements found in the local church.  This led one suggestion the SBC nominate Beth Moore to be president.   So, the way we fix individual people’s hearts when it comes to issues they may have about women is to elect a woman as the President of the SBC?  What would this accomplish, really?  A similar argument could be made about racism within the SBC.  Dr. Fred Luter was president recently.  Did all racists within the SBC suddenly stop being racist?  No.

What should we do? 

First, we can’t have any kind of real discussion about race without starting at the beginning – with Adam and Eve – who were the first members of the only race that counts – the human kind.  From there, we can acknowledge that, yes, there are people who make judgments about others based solely on skin color and, yes, that is a pitifully pathetic means of thinking about others.  We must also, however, acknowledge there are people of good will whose skin color comes in all varieties and that such people long for as much harmony and unity as is possible “under the sun.”  We must understand that so long as God delays the return of Jesus, there will be inevitable misunderstandings and inevitable bad actors that will stand in the way of absolute racial harmony.  This doesn’t mean we don’t do anything; it does mean we recognize we can’t do everything.  Jesus told us, for instance, we’d always have the poor with us; he didn’t say this so that we would disregard the poor or make no effort to alleviate poverty.  This did, however, make clear that our priority must be something else.  We cannot make racial harmony our priority because that’s not the gospel message.  We can, however, determine, by the grace of God, seek to be the people of God, who are preaching the good news of the gospel, as Dr. Albert Mohler has said, “promiscuously” and who are discipling others and being disciplined Christ followers ourselves, regardless of race/ethnicity.

We are NEVER going to solve the problem of race relations on this earth, in this country, in our own states, in our own cities, or even in our own churches until Jesus returns.  People are sinners and sinners do sinful things, like treat people poorly based solely on the color of their skin.  Some, even people who are sitting in pews in our churches, will never change their hearts and minds because God has given them over to their sinful desires – which sometimes includes the desire to be a racist.  What we can and should do is focus on treating our neighbor as we would like to be treated – loving our neighbor as ourselves – following the example of the Good Samaritan and showing compassion for others along the way of life.  We should reach out with the good news both in season and out of season, for this is, we believe, the best possible thing we can do for anyone, whatever their skin color may be.  As we make disciples, we will see people’s hearts and minds changed.  Isn’t that the means by which God works to change us?  Or have all the classes and books at seminary misled me?

So, SBC leaders, please help me figure this out.  Are you prescribing window dressing so you can make yourselves feel better or do you really want to see true change?  If you really want to see true change, why aren’t we simply talking about being good neighbors, spreading the gospel, making disciples and leaving the results to God?  Or am I just too racist adjacent to see how terribly misguided I am?

I really want to know.

---

[1] So far as I know, I’m the first to use the term “nationist” in this way, as a parallel to racist.

Just Sophisticated Slime: Young Men and School Shootings

I wrote this over a month ago, but wanted to wait to post it until we were a bit removed from the event.

The school shooting in Florida 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’ve posted over 100 times since 2014: only one other time did I discuss gun control (here ) and I didn’t argue for or against it.  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 [you can review the CDC numbers on teenager deaths for yourself  here.]  When you combine those numbers with the number of children in middle and high 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 teenager’s death was a relatively unlikely occurrence.  Nor am I, by citing these statistics and numbers, attempting to make light of any teenager’s death.  Far from it, I believe each one of these teenagers 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

Did a Mom Really Compare Abortion to Re-arranging Furniture?

I recently read an article written for New Yorker Magazine by a mother who has a son with Cystic Fibrosis.  In case you don’t know, Cystic Fibrosis is a devastating disease and most people who have it die young – typically by age 30.  It’s also very debilitating in its final stages and wracks the body horribly.  You can read the article HERE.

I recognize this mother’s plight – she has a child that will almost certainly not outlive her.  That’s a terrible burden for any parent to bear.  I’m a parent of two boys (one a fully grown man, one still a young man) and the grandparent of a 15 month old boy.  It would be devastating for me to know with almost guaranteed 100% certainty that any one of them would die before me.

But here’s the rub: no matter what, I would not trade out having any one of those three guys around.  You see, my grandson was born at 24 weeks – almost too young to make it.  He endured three months of living in a neonatal care unit with all the bells and whistles that go along with such an existence.  He’s now growing and thriving.  My son and daughter in law were told by one medical doctor to have an abortion – they refused.  It could have gone very badly for them.  Fortunately, it didn’t.  That’s one of the risks of having children, though.  You are never completely sure what you’re getting.

So this author writes the following:

The more I discuss the abortion I didn’t have, the easier that part gets to say aloud: I would have ended the pregnancy. I would have terminated. I would have had an abortion. That’s firmly in the past, and it is how I would have rearranged my actions, given all the information. It’s moving a piece of furniture from one place to another before anything can go wrong, the way we got rid of our wobbly side tables once Dudley learned to walk.

She equates having an abortion with “moving a piece of furniture from one place to another before anything can go wrong.”  How tragic to see a human life with this perspective.

Of course, she says she loves her son and I don’t doubt that she’s doing all she can to make his life bearable and livable.  The angst with which she writes is clear and heart-rending.  But one has to wonder, given the tenor of the article, is her angst more about her or about her son?  As I read the article my conclusion was that she lamented having the child because of how she feels not because her son is suffering.  In fact, the more I read, the more the word sanctimonious came to mind.  Poor, poor pitiful me.  My child has an incurable disease and but for some medical personnel failing to properly inform me about the possibility, he wouldn’t even be here and wouldn’t be weighing me down with all these darn feelings of guilt and of what could have been.

As if many parents, many mothers, haven’t had to deal with the heart wrenching reality of their child suffering?  What about the mom who did all she could and her son dies of cancer at age 5?  Would you have aborted your child if you could predict that?  And why?  Mostly to protect your own feelings, your own concerns, your own sense of what you deserve.

This isn’t about this little boy, Dudley, a child made in the image of God.  The author clearly doesn’t believe in God, as she asserts at one point that she “made” Dudley.  This is unfortunate.  She can’t acknowledge this reality, which leaves her to make the ironic and inconsistent claims that she loves her son but would have “spared” him this life had she been better informed.  Why assume his life is so awful?  Is she, or any of us, really capable of determining whether he would have been better off never being born?  How is anyone able to even make such a calculation?  Who is prepared to engage in the spectacularly arrogant presumption of claiming they know the answer?

Why believe that his life means so little?  What if her Mom had foreseen she was going to have this child and decided, based on that, to abort her?  Looking back is she willing to say that would have been acceptable?  Or, is it the case that because she doesn’t have a debilitating disease she is somehow more valuable, more meaningful, more purpose-laden than her son?  Is she so ready to write off his life when she can’t possibly predict the future with any real accuracy?

Yes, it’s incredibly likely her son will die around 30 years old or sooner.  But 30 years is time enough to live an amazing life.  None of us get a guarantee when our children are born.  But that’s what this woman wanted – either give me a child who doesn’t burden me, or let me dispose of him like a piece of old furniture.  I wonder, is she in favor of killing off her son now?  Why not?  If he was worthy of being aborted before he managed to be born, why is being born the sine qua non of humanness such that to kill him off now is morally problematic?  The very same problem presents itself – he’s got a debilitating disease that will require her to spend a great deal of energy and time taking care of him.  What is the moral difference?

We know the answer – as does this mother – none.  Yet, she clearly wants to do the best she can for her son and that is commendable.  However, given the worldview that undergirds her article, it’s irrational.  Living with that cognitive dissonance every day has to be tiring and painful.  This is what makes the Christian view of the world so uplifting – it brings hope to the hopeless, faith to the faithless, love to the unloved, joy to the joyless, meaning to those who believe their life is meaningless, purpose to those who think they’re purposeless.  Apparently, the best this Mom can do is grit her teeth and bear it.  What a horrible way to “love” your child.

SBC: The World Hates Us Anyway - A response to the Paige Patterson Matter

I had a post here on the Paige Patterson situation.  I have removed it, not because of what I said, but because I think I need to take my own advice and think more about this situation before commenting at length.

However, I do want to say this much: there is an on-line petition signed by 2400 people directed to the trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary which does not ask for Patterson to be fired, but certainly the implication is there.  I want to ask two questions of those who signed the petition:

1.  What is the biblical basis for doing such a petition in such a public manner?

2.  How many of you have any real connection of any kind to Dr. Patterson beyond what you've consumed via media?