Destroy:Ideas

A litmus test for racism

2016-11-14T09:34:00.000-08:00

Everyone has what is called Confirmation Bias, the tendency to interpret new information as confirmation of personal beliefs. Because we all have it, we have to be conscious of this blind spot and work against our impulses and seek the truth, especially when it comes to forming public policy and criminal law.
When our now president-elect Donald Trump retweeted this image in the midst of his Republican primary campaign, he did so for a reason. He did it to attract support. He did it to make a point, a day after a black activist was kicked and punched by supporters at one of his rallies in Alabama.

This statistic is wrong. Very wrong. But Trump thought it was right. It confirmed a bias.
What bias would Donald J. Trump have confirmed by sharing such an incorrect fact?

Why are we at conflict?

2014-12-22T16:45:00.000-08:00

Why are we at conflict?

Accountability

Being a law enforcement officer is a difficult and thankless job. It has its own unique challenges that other difficult jobs don't have. The nature of its work means officers are isolated from the community they police, so they don't get to live normal lives. It's not the most dangerous or demanding of jobs, but at least when commercial fishermen get back to the port they can live their lives just like everyone else without scrutiny or even rude behavior. It's emotionally taxing in that way.

However, when I see people posting items online supporting the police in the context of current events - especially when you don't see these same outpourings of support at any other time - what I see is people saying police shouldn't be held accountable for their mistakes. Because we don't understand how hard the job is, or how difficult it is to make snap decisions under pressure, we can't judge these officers who make these mistakes that cost the lives of others. And that is ridiculous.

Drilling wells at the bottom of the ocean is a difficult, demanding job, but when they screw up and fill the sea with crude oil we don't just throw up our hands and say, "Well, it's a tough job, and we don't understand how hard it is." No! We hold them accountable for their mistakes.

A simile: parenting is difficult, and it's impossible to know what it's like to be a parent unless you are one. It's even more difficult when a child is special needs, especially when those needs aren't diagnosed so the parent receives help. It doesn't matter if a parent is mostly good for seven years if they mess up once and throws their child down some stairs, or hits them with a board. So don't tell me the parent was good 99.96% of the time, so statistically they're a good parent. And don't take those statistics even further and compare all parents and all disciplinary actions taken by parents to minimize the one mistake made. That parent should be held accountable for that mistake.

Sometimes an officer who makes a mistake gets punished. The officer who shot Oscar Grant in the back while he was lying face down on the ground was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to two years. Sometimes it doesn't. The officer who killed Eric Garner received an administrative reassignment and avoided any criminal charges, while the EMTs and paramedics were suspended without pay. It's when the system fails to hold the officer accountable that the system is criticized along with the individual. A failure of justice isn't something to just write off.

It’s different this time

In April of this year, Fox News and the conservative media as a whole was very upset about what they perceived as a failure of justice. Cliven Bundy had a 20-year dispute with the United States Bureau of Land Management over the use of Federal land to pasture his cattle. He didn't renew his grazing permit in 1993, and was prohibited from using the land in 1998 by a Federal Court, and Bundy didn't comply with the order. For the next 15 years he used the land illegally. A Federal judge ordered him again in 2013 from using the land, and he didn't stop, so in 2014 the BLM went in to impound the trespassing cattle.

I bring this up because you didn't hear the same refrains then as you do now, "You have to respect the law's decision." No, instead you had the media talking heads stirring up ideas of revolution. Because the government was removing cattle trespassing on government land, they called for revolution. These media people went to the ranch to support Bundy, and the attention it received brought militia types from all over to go to the ranch with lots of guns. These armed scofflaws pointed weapons at the law enforcement officers, taunted them, and told them they were going to die. The motivation for these people wasn't to protect these cattle but to start a revolution. They put women and children in the front lines so if a firefight did break out they'd have a propaganda victory.

These armed individuals attacked the law enforcement officers, with guns drawn, broke into the impound lot and stole the cattle. They stole government property at the point of many guns, and got away with it.

And the conservative media encouraged this. They didn't respect the justice system, they didn't accept the judicial decision, and they brought guns out to fight the law. (The mainstream conservative media backed away from Bundy after he made racist remarks, which must have come as a shock to him because he was just repeating what the conservative media is always saying about black people, just with unrefined language. Fox News has been trotting out these same ideas in recent weeks even.)

After the standoff ended, two of these crazies ambushed two police officers in Las Vegas while they were eating lunch at a restaurant, killing both of them. They then went to a Walmart and killed another person (a "good guy with a gun" concealed carry holder). A conservative talk show host went on to defend these murderers saying, "when you have police officers that are going around and doing violent things all day long, and then they take a break for lunch, well, it doesn't mean all of the sudden they're innocent or they’re being peaceful because they’re taking a break from all of their other anti-freedom, rights-violating violence. Think of how many lives might have been saved by this incident. How many people would these cops have killed had they not been killed?”

After this event, I didn't a flood of concern for police. I didn't see Fox News go to the memorial for fallen law enforcement to remind everyone how much police sacrifice (as they did after the Eric Garner grand jury and before the slaying of two NYPD officers). There wasn’t a flood of Facebook profile pictures changing to support police. There wasn’t a rally to support police.

No. Indeed, Fox News, the media organization that put the Bundy Ranch in the spotlight, dropped all coverage of the cop killings the very next day. Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity (the main personalities that kept the Bundy Ranch standoff in the forefront) never mentioned the deaths of those two officers. Megyn Kelly gave all of four sentences to their deaths after giving weeks of airtime to the standoff. Fox & Friends and other Fox News shows didn’t mention the killings at all. They instead covered Hillary Clinton’s book release.

Two days before the Las Vegas incident, another right-wing “sovereign citizen” drove up to an Atlanta courthouse and immediately shot a law enforcement officer and engaged in a gun battle with police for three minutes. He was armed with assault weapons and improvised explosive devices.

In 2010, two police were killed by two other “sovereign citizens” during a traffic stop. In 2009, a “sovereign citizen” set up an ambush in his home and killed three police.

There’s a whole segment of the right-wing armed and ready to kill police to start a revolution in this country. I know a couple. My family hosted events in the 1990s in our home where these people talked about their insane conspiracy theories, defended the Oklahoma City bombers, and stockpiled arms and supplies to take on the government. I remember one acquaintance in these circles tell my police officer brother that all cops are corrupt and dishonest, which provides a glimpse into the mentality that’s supported with this ideology.

Yet this isn’t a big story! This isn’t something people talk about. Conservative media won’t even give it any mention, because they have plenty of room under their “big tent” for cop killers and those who support cop killers.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a big figure in politics, and just this year at a rally for him one of the speakers went on a tirade about killing Californians. “[If you see Californians] pull off into residential areas, you need to open fire on these vehicles immediately. Immediately. Not with 9mm or AR rounds; you need to put mortars on those things, you cannot take any chances,” he says to a laughing audience. This is the type of rhetoric they use to stir up the conservative base.

And silence.

Compare and contrast

It’s the same year as the Bundy Ranch standoff, so what’s the difference now? Why no mention of the cop killing in Las Vegas and copious amounts of coverage of recent tragic shooting of two police officers in New York? Why the support of scofflaws in Nevada, and condemnation of the peaceful protesters in Ferguson, New York, Cleveland, et al?

Yes, this time there’s widespread protests over the injustice. In April, the conservative media had to beat the drum of revolution to get anyone to care about grazing rights in the desert, so the protests were much more limited. On the one hand, you have two different courts finding Bundy noncompliant with the law, and on the other you have multiple departments, prosecutors, and grand juries not finding anything criminal in the homicides of many unarmed young men in what is perceived as an excessive use of force.

When you have protests you have counter protests, it’s the nature of the beast, but the counter protesters in this case don’t really have an ideological principle they’re supporting. There isn’t a political or policy issue at stake here. The counter protests are political, though, they’re trying to leverage power out of the situation.

Here’s where I think I’ll take a break and say that every protest has multiple voices. What I argue is the main issue here (which I believe is the actual issue most people understand and voiced during the majority of the protests) isn’t necessarily what everyone in the protest would agree upon. The same is true of the counter protests. It’s difficult to generalize these things. On one side, there are anarchists and agitators who are drawn to every protest who just want to cause trouble and other people who don’t have a good grasp of any coherent issue, they’re generally just upset with the system, and there are even some anti-authority people who just don’t like cops. (There are also undercover officers in the crowds who agitate in order to make arrests.) On the other side, there are the KKK groups who went to Ferguson, MO armed and threatening protesters with violence, the racists who think all black people are criminals or should be scrutinized as if they are, those who capitalize on racial tension, those who are not sure what’s going on exactly, but they don’t like the people leading protests so they’re against it by default, and of course those who only see the fringe elements in the protests and aren’t against the actual issue as much as they’re against the extremists who are simply opposing the police. (Usually this later group is this way because conservative media only focuses on the fringe elements.)

It’s difficult to generalize, so all I can really talk to are the people I see that are closest to me. There I mainly see support for police in general, some blatant racism, and some who are only interested because they don’t like who are leading some protests. Usually the Venn diagram overlaps a bit. I’m confounded about why they care so much.

If you break this whole thing down into its basic elements, it’s police acting to enforce the law, applying force, killing someone, and not being held accountable. In some cases, no law is being broken; it’s just a suspicion of a criminal act. In other cases, there is a law being broken which isn’t a felony, and there’s no weapon. So the protest is about why so much force is being used on these young men, specifically why it’s overwhelmingly being applied to black men, and why the law doesn’t find anything wrong with this.

So when I try to figure out what the counter protesters are supporting/defending, I can’t figure it out. I haven’t read or heard anyone give a decent argument for it; all I hear is defensive posturing, hatred for the protesters, and general support for police.

Defensive posturing

There is a very obvious difference between the Bundy Ranch protest and the Ferguson protest: race. Not everyone has an interest in land disputes, but everyone has a skin color that puts them in a group. But the protest over law enforcement use of deadly force and its disproportionate effect on the black community doesn’t affect most white people, so why are they getting so defensive about it? It’s an issue so complicated it would take years to figure out, if possible, but many have tried. It’s difficult to criticize our nation’s racial inequalities without those who have benefitted from the inequalities from getting upset. This of course leads to a phrase white people hate: white privilege. When I see defensive comments about these protests, white privilege is always brought up. They really hate this term. It’s important though, so I’ll take another break to explain it.

White privilege

Most people think privilege is having outsized wealth and power, so they assume white privilege is having wealth and privilege without earning it by their own efforts. While it’s true our society has been bent to give wealth and power to white people for many generations, it’s also true not every white person has benefitted from this equally, and some even immigrated here after many of these unequal policies ended. But this isn’t white privilege. The diminutive definition of the term I’ll fit into this larger article is that white privilege is not having to deal with race as an obstacle, and indeed the ability to ignore racial issues altogether. This is not true of white people universally at all times, but white people can remove themselves from a situation where race is affecting them and into a place where it doesn’t while people of color don’t have this privilege unless they move to another country.

When white people get defensive about these protests, it’s because they’re losing a bit of their white privilege and they’re forced to face a racial disparity. I would like to just shut all of this out and live a little more happily, to avoid the arguments, avoid the heartache, and I can. I can ignore it if I wanted to, but I won’t. I won’t because I’m choosing to deal with a difficult issue that affects the lives of real people, including my own children. The default response is to deny there is a disparity, and that to say there is one is itself a racist statement. This is why the most common meme I see from white people about these protests is a picture of Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jessie Jackson, President Barack Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder with a caption calling that person, or those people, “the real racists.”

It goes deeper than that, though, when I see comments about, “how am I responsible for this just because I’m white?” Which is another feature of defensiveness: making it personal. They will condemn lots of people because of what one person says, but then they’ll take a general criticism of society as a personal assault.

If you are working somewhere and the owner finds the profits aren’t where they should be because of a business culture that’s not working harmoniously, you won’t think that you’re the reason why the business isn’t making enough money, so when the employer makes changes to the business culture it’s not personal. But when our society is unequal, people take it personally. It’s not because we’ve all decided to be unequal, we’ve just fit into the culture, didn’t make waves, and went along with it, so when we need to change our society, don’t take it personally, we all need to work together to change the culture together, not place blame.

Hatred for protesters

Some people just don’t like protesters. They think protesters should just accept society the way it is, vote if they want changes, and get on with things. These people are typically silent, though. They’re moderate; they aren’t going to be vocal about these issues nearly as much as someone who has taken a position for or against the protested issue.

What I see is vitriol against anyone protesting. The first thing they do is make every protester into the spitting image of the worst elements. Imagine yourself being viewed as the worst from your group. The hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters are all viewed as the few who started fires. They’re all viewed as supporting the few who chanted, “What do we want? Dead cops!” They willfully blind themselves to the actual protested issues and focus exclusively on the few guys throwing rocks.

A criticism is a judgment of something. In order to judge something, you have to know its character and value. Too many protester haters do not listen to the protests to understand what the protest is about, so they don’t know what they’re criticizing. They’re not critics, they’re haters.

General support for police

I have a strong affinity for police. When my children talk about what they want to be when they grow up, I make sure they include police on that list. The issues my family has dealt with has made us much more reliant on the police than most people. My brother is a police officer. I get support for police. I support them all the time, not just when they’re under attack. The problem here is that the police aren’t under attack – at least not as the purpose of the majority of these protests. When large groups of people gather to protest, it’s impossible to control the message coming from everyone, and some people certainly do hate cops, but the organizers of these protests, the vast majority of the protesters, and the protest issues aren’t anti-police. No, they’re pro-police. They want and need police; they just want them to be held accountable for their mistakes, and for the tactics to be reviewed.

When Ferguson first became a flashpoint, the police there came out very heavy-handed; so much that the issues quickly went away from Michael Brown and onto the militarization of our police forces. If there was a start to anti-police protests, it was there. It happens in a lot of protests, and it seems to be deliberate in a lot of cases. The police or someone with power over them start putting pressure on protesters so the protest issues change from their original goals to one of standing up for the right to protest. I watched it first hand during the Occupy Wall Street movement when those protests went from protesting the lack of accountability on Wall Street and the corrupting influence of power the banks have in Washington to fighting for the right to protest. It’s an ingenious move if you want to confuse the issues, and divide the protesters into infighting camps.

After the Ferguson grand jury decision, the protest message has been mostly clear, and the addition of Tamir Rice and Eric Garner only solidified the central issue of disproportionate effects of police force on black men. Overall, the protests have stuck to this message of accountability.

It seems the context of this outpouring of support for police is one of willfully ignoring the protested issues, denying racial inequalities or agreeing with the decisions to not hold these officers accountable for wrongdoing.

Ignoring the protested issues

I’ve covered this issues a few times now. Some counter protesters reject engagement with the actual issues and focus on the fringe elements. This is exemplified by one comment that literally claimed there were tens of thousands of protesters that were “armed, angry and on a mission.” They watch the video of the one, small protest with the “dead cops” chant and smear all protesters with the same sentiment. They see two police officers killed by a man (who actually seemed to express a desire to not go back to jail, like the tragic incident in Seattle in 2009), and claim protesters are going to kill more cops. They find videos of a few people who are inarticulate and claim the protesters don’t know why they’re protesting.

Or, they don’t like who is leading some protests (e.g. Al Sharpton), and don’t bother to listen to the protest demands at all.

Denying racial inequality

Denial of racial inequality is probably the most common argument I’ve encountered. This is closely tied with white privilege, because white people don’t have to see inequalities we largely ignore them. And when we ignore them, we don’t believe them. And when we don’t believe them, we say they don’t exist. And when we say they don’t exist, we’re gaslighting every person of color, telling them their experience isn’t real. They are confused. We know better than them. Because we, as white people in America, have a better understanding of how race affects people of color than they do. We have a clearer understanding, because we’re above all that. People of color can’t see the race issue clearly, and should recuse themselves, and let us think for them. Feel for them.

Why should white people think any differently? We’re not harassed by police for loitering, or looking out of place. We’re not regularly pulled over for any apparent reason. We’re not having our car searched every time we are pulled over. We’re not questioned every time something goes missing. We’re not told we’re angry. We’re not told our experiences aren’t real.

But when you talk to a pastor of a black congregation who tells you the majority of his congregation have had their cars searched, have had police draw guns on them, have had their bodies searched, have had to lay flat on their faces, and all of this for nothing, perhaps we should listen to them. And not just anecdotes: whites make up 70% of all arrests, yet only 40% of all inmates. Blacks make up 28% of arrests and 40% of the inmate population. This is problematic not only because persons of color are incarcerated in greater numbers, but because they face harsher penalties for the same crimes. Blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed by police at a rate 21 times greater than whites the same age between 2010 and 2012.

This is where we circle back to defensive posturing, because when the data come in that definitively show unfair outcomes, white apologists argue that blacks are more prone to crime, and then go on to argue that’s why they should be scrutinized by law enforcement. That is, of course, the dictionary definition of racism: “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race.” And the defensive circle continues, because nobody wants to be called a racist.

This circles back to taking everything personally, instead of collectively. A police officer will say, “I’m not racist.” She might be right, but collectively the system is bent in such a way that outcomes for people of color are different. It’s not out of conscious decisions. It’s not out of racial animus. It’s out of a historical pattern of white supremacy in the nation with the only constitution that supports racism and slavery (Articles I and IV respectively.), that gave land to white settlers, provided education for the settlers to farm the land, gave them commissions to improve these farms, separated the races, denied people of color GI Bill benefits, redlined minority communities, et al. This isn’t ancient history, there are people alive today who suffered unequal laws and segregated culture. There is people alive benefitting monetarily from slavery in the form of loan interests. When we have hundreds of years of racial inequality, we can’t expect the affects to disappear over one generation just by pretending it never happened.

Claiming the officers did no wrong

The protested issues are about the use of force by law enforcement officers to subdue suspects. This issue is nuanced. I know law enforcement officers don’t want the burden of criminal liability for taking a life in the course of duty. I don’t want that. I don’t think any thoughtful person wants that. What we want, of course, are policies that will minimize the chances for unjustified homicide: taking a hard look at double standards, rigorous police candidate screening, and robust tactical training. If we accept police tactics that result in unnecessary deaths, we should look at those tactics and change them.

The autopsy of Eric Garner showed he was killed by homicide, by the compression of his neck and chest. That chokehold tactic was not permitted by the NYPD. There was no accountability for breaking a protocol that resulted in the death of an innocent man. Why do we accept a system that doesn’t hold this officer accountable?

Tamir Rice was shot dead two seconds after the officer exited his vehicle, which was still moving upon egress. We should not accept a tactic that escalates rather than deescalates a situation. This tactic was tantamount to a surprise attack, more fitting to the military than to policing a community.

The same tactic was used by the officers that shot and killed Kajieme Powell. If the officers are afraid of a man with a knife charging them, why are they pulling their vehicle right up on him?

John Crawford was shot with little warning inside a Walmart because he was holding a BB gun. Let’s track back to the Bundy Ranch for a second to recall that none of those gun-toting lunatics were shot for aiming real guns at law enforcement. We’ve seen other videos where armed men are contained and talked down or taken down without fatality because the police deescalate the situation. Why should we accept tactics from police that are for all intents and purposes ambush tactics?

Akai Gurley was killed because the officer was patrolling with his gun draw and was startled when Gurley opened a door on a stairwell below him (at least according to the officer’s account). Marines deployed to Iraq have testified that during house sweeps they were not to aim their weapons until ready to fire. Why are we allowing police to patrol apartment buildings with their guns out?

There is pushback from law enforcement, and I don’t blame them, they don’t want to be told how to do their job. That’s not a luxury most of us have. We follow policies given to us by our employers or clients. Police officers are servants of the public, if their tactics are making the public feel like the enemy in an occupied territory, the tactics have to change. If the tactics are resulting in unnecessary deaths, the tactics have to change.

In Ferguson the argument is, “the grand jury decided nothing criminal happened, we have to accept the decision.” Why? Why do we have to accept that shooting at an unarmed man as he was fleeing is acceptable? (More than half of the grand jury witnesses and the Ferguson police said Officer Wilson opened fire while Brown was running away.) Why should we accept that shooting a man with his hands up is acceptable? (More than half of the witness statements at the grand jury said his hands were raised.) Why do we have to accept shooting a man while he’s on the ground is acceptable? (Half of the grand jury witnesses claim he was shot while on the ground.) Why do we have to accept the results of a grand jury where the prosecution acted like a defense attorney, provided incorrect and unconstitutional information about police use of force, and allowed witnesses he knew to be lying testify, including a witness who was nowhere near the scene and was recounting tales learned on conservative blogs?

These protests aren’t just about what happened in these confrontations but about a system that says this level of force is acceptable. That even when mistakes are made or protocols aren’t followed there is no recourse for justice.

There are actual human beings who are dead right now that shouldn’t be. There are families grieving the loss of their son, husband, father. Don’t pretend that you’re the one with the sob story because these protests make you uncomfortable.

And, for goodness sake, quit minimizing the loss of life as if it’s losing loose change in the sofa cushions: an unavoidable minor inconvenience. A matter of statistics.

Unexpected sacrifices

2013-07-17T08:15:00.004-07:00

Three years ago, when my wife and I began the process to adopt children, we expected sacrifices. It doesn't matter if a child is born or adopted into a family, sacrifices are inevitable. Sleep. Finances. Sanity. Material goods. But recently we have found a sacrifice we did not expect, and it's the hardest, most painful sacrifice ever.

Our social workers thought we were the greatest candidates ever. We had clean criminal histories. We were young. We had a supportive family. We had very few stipulations. After we were certified as a foster home we waited months before we received a call. One of our requests was maximum of two children - they had three; did we want to meet them?

We went to the disclosure meeting with the social worker where they told us everything they knew about the children and their families. Ages. Medical history. Why they were in the system. How long they were in the system. They were what is considered a difficult placement because they were three siblings, and they were black.

When we were in our training classes we learned that a majority of people who are looking to adopt do so because of fertility issues (most people assume that's why we did). They want a baby. If they're white like us, they want a white baby. Asian babies are the second most desired. Hispanic and especially black children are difficult to find homes for. This is why the rules for adoption have opened up to allow placement into homes other than the child's race.

We said we would meet them.

Our three new children were 2-, 3- and 4-years old at the time. The youngest didn't talk. The oldest was shy. The middle one wouldn't stop eating. We loved them immediately. We love them so much more now.

Throughout the training process my wife and I were surrounded by loving friends and family. They all told us how we were doing such a great thing. They promised their support. We had a lot of emotional and physical support.

Things changed almost immediately after the children came to live with us full-time. We did take a small break from the world for a few weeks to get accustomed to the children, and them to us. I can't find fault with anyone because it was right in the middle of the Great Recession, people were moving between homes, jobs, etc. One of our biggest support groups was overrun by a cult so it imploded. But we felt isolated from many of our friends. Some who promised they'd help out were always too busy. Others were moving to other states, or out of the area. Others just disappeared.

We had our children for about a year when the biggest blow came; my wife's family packed up and moved four (Western) states away. They had been our rock. Our biggest support. My mother-in-law quit her job to help us out. My brother-in-law was my best friend. The family would get together multiple times every week. They were what made us so confident we could take on such a huge task - three children - all at one time. And they were gone.

It started at denial, and turned to anger, but ended with acceptance. We were on our own. We now had our own family, and our own responsibilities. We would have to raise our family the way most people do.

A year later the adoption was finalized. When all of our social structure collapsed, we refocused ourselves. My wife went back to school. I worked and took care of the kids. I started following Major League Soccer. Life consisted almost entirely of work, kids, laundry, meals, dishes, soccer and the occasional outing with the few friends who were still in the flesh and answered my text messages. The rest of my circle existed in the cloud: Facebook mostly.

The oldest turned 5. Enrolled in kindergarten. They all entered child care. They're now growing up so fast. Breakfast. School. Work. Child care. Dinner. Bedtime. Repeat.

Their little minds began to notice things. Before they assumed adults were white and kids were black. They would say, "When I grow up I'll be white like daddy." But in school they were surrounded by white kids. Latinas. Other black kids. New ideas started to creep in. "I don't like being brown," she would say. "I'm ugly."

She would draw herself in crayon. White face. Long, straight hair. He would say he looked "dirty."

We were always conscious of the need to have black figures in their lives. Their hairstylist, barber, half-brother - we even tried to keep their paternal grandmother involved. We had black dolls. Sesame Street helped with self esteem. So did Willow Smith.

But it still came. We brought in more famous black people they could connect with: Esperanza Spaulding. Yasiin Bey. Questlove. One night they all had questions, so we pulled out a poster with the images and names of the most influential African American figures: Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., Hank Aaron, and Barack Obama to name a few. They loved it.

Then Trayvon Martin happened. That young man in his hoodie blew things up. Reliable friends started pushing us away because we said simple things like, "My son does look like Trayvon." They insisted my wife and I couldn't have a rational thought on the topic. We were "too invested" to think clearly. My wife especially got thrashed by what I thought were good friends who belittled her in the most patronizing manner.

With frayed strings of relation, we got over it. We have more important things to do. I've got to teach my kids to swim. I want my kids at least half-way through the year's curriculum before the school year starts.

But it doesn't go away. Facebook makes everything public and not a week goes by when I don't see a friend or family member commenting on some public forum or image with no self-awareness to how racial their words are. Or they're simply in agreement with friends or acquaintances who spew vile racist ideas into the ether because they want to be like their favorite radio personality.

It's not just the blatant racism disguised as political thought either, it's the subtle racism in "politically incorrect" jokes. They say, "Lighten up." The bully's defense. But it hurts. It saddens me. It saddens my wife. The way these people disrespect my children. The way they hide behind might be funny to a bunch of white kids with no black friends but is really dispiriting to my children. They don't know how hurtful it is because my kids are already hearing these things at school.

Sure, you'll bounce my kid on your knee and then say mean things about him when he's not around because it's just so funny. Ha. Ha. Ha.

That's not even the most hurtful thing. It's the defensiveness they take when we make simple comments about how raising a black child in white suburbia is different. We say something about how our daughter doesn't like her hair and it's like we called every white person in the world a racist. "Every girl is like that," they'll say, not realizing the other girls at school are making fun of her because she's different! Every girl isn't the odd one out. I make one comment about how I'll have to teach my sons things about social interaction that me, as a white man, take for granted, and it's like I told the closest people to me that they're hate-filled scum.

When other parents talk about the issues they face raising their children they get sympathetic platitudes or thoughtful advice. We get arguments. Because we're not emotional beings struggling with the issues our children are facing, we're simply political punching bags.

It hurts.

About 18 months after Trayvon was killed, the verdict is in: not guilty. It doesn't matter what my opinion is because what I see are my family making senseless comments about the animal behavior of black people, because we've never seen a white person take to the streets in anger. (Oh, but that's different, these black people are angry over a white man's acquittal; those white people were angry because a sports legend was fired for covering up child sexual abuse, so it's different!) They post articles to the few cases of violence that have sprung up making comments about how the entire black community are responsible for this behavior. But it's not a racist comment, because I"m sure they also claimed every white man in America is responsible for the Lane Kiffin Riot.

It doesn't just stop there, but it keeps building and building. They say they're not racist, but they take to their Facebook pages like a virtual riot. They say they love my children but they continue to criticize black people as a bloc, and even directly insult my family. They say they love me, but they dismiss any and all concerns I have over the very experiences my children are already facing - at 4-, 5- and 6-years old.

Three years ago, when my wife and I began the process to adopt children, we expected sacrifices. But recently we have found a sacrifice we did not expect, and it's the hardest, most painful sacrifice ever. We sacrificed our white identity.

A message to fathers from Louis C.K.

2013-06-23T11:15:00.000-07:00

Father's Day was last week, but I love this message so much I want to share it anyway.

Louis C.K. has been a big encouragement to me as a father. He says (indirectly anyway, "We have thoughts and feelings and that's OK, it doesn't make you a bad person. Your actions make you a good person. Just be a good person."

Who is bullying whom?

2013-03-26T14:07:00.000-07:00

Object lesson:

Pete goes to school with an almond butter sandwich and Brad takes it from him. This happens every day. The other students know this happens and encourages Brad to take Pete's sandwich. They applaud him and provide moral support. Similarly the teachers and administrative staff support Brad's thievery. They say that Pete doesn't deserve to eat sandwiches like everyone else because the right sandwich is peanut butter. They tell him that he can eat any sandwich he likes as long as it's peanut butter. Pete insists on bringing almond butter sandwiches.

Pete is not a bully. His actions are not equivalent to Brad's nor to those of any other person in the school.

One day a classmate of Pete's named Jessica stands with Pete and calls Brad a bully. She sands with Pete and trying to convince the other students and adults that what Brad is doing is wrong. The sandwich rightfully belongs to Pete, and he's entitled to eat lunch just like everyone else.

Jessica is not a bully. Her actions are not equivalent to Brad's nor to those of any other person in the school.

Jessica finally convinces a group of children of the righteousness of her cause. They all band together to protect Pete. But the school administrators step in and take the sandwich away from Pete anyway. They give it to Brad claiming it's his right to take the sandwich from Pete. These advocate children begin to become more vocal and attempt to stop Brad and the administration from taking Pete's sandwich.

These children in solidarity are not bullies. Their actions are not equivalent to Brad's nor to those of the administration.

Constance is a teacher in the school. She is swayed by the advocate children's cause and she herself becomes a supporter of Pete's right to eat almond butter sandwiches. Over time Constance attempts to sway the rest of the administration to the cause of almond butter sandwiches. Meanwhile several other children begin bringing their own almond butter sandwiches to school. Coalitions form to support the right of children to eat whatever sandwich they would like free from abuse. Some children even bring bologna sandwiches to school.

Constance is not a bully. The children with different sandwiches are not bullies. None of their actions are equivalent to Brad, his supporters nor to those of the prevailing school administration

After many years of these skirmishes, a new school administration takes over which allows all kinds of sandwiches. Brad is no longer allowed to take sandwiches from other students. Brad forms a club which is called "Defense of Traditional Sandwiches."

The new administration is not a bully. Their actions are not equivalent to those opposed to non-peanut butter based sandwiches.

Brad and the Defense of Traditional Sandwiches organization continue their fight to ban almond butter and other forms of sandwiches. They claim that historically sandwiches have always been and will always be recognized as only peanut butter sandwiches, they begin to steal non-peanut butter sandwiches from other students. The school administration expels Brad from the school and bans sandwich theft. Brad and his followers then claim that they are having their rights trampled upon and that they are the victims of bullying.

he pro-sandwich-choice side of this entire object lesson are not bullies nor could they ever be considered bullies. They are actively denying children the right to eat whatever sandwich they prefer and are in no way in the position of denying Brad and his lot any rights at all because they do not have the right to take from others what is theirs.

This shouldn't be difficult. Both sides are not equivalent.

How to stop mass murder

2012-12-18T10:27:00.000-08:00

I admit, I'm not a policy expert. I haven't done the years of research to know the ins and outs of these issues from a policy level. This post is largely a response to a friend who asked what I think should change from a public policy perspective to try and prevent the next gun-involved massacre like the one we just saw in Newtown, CT.

First to address the axiom, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." This is essentially true, but it ignores the fact that people use tools to do everything from trim their toenails to landing rover robots on Mars. And certainly the tools which people use allow people to kill. Guns, in particular the type of guns used too often in these gun massacres, allow people to kill quickly and proficiently before anyone has a chance to react.

Hypothetically, if I were to invent a little box with a button on it that killed anyone I would like within 100 yards of me, you would expect that I wouldn't be able to sell them on Craigslist to anyone I'd like. While the user of the death box is ultimately responsible, as the acting agent, the box itself would be recognizable as the conduit for such deaths which occur. We as a society wouldn't just throw up our hands and say, "Cat's out of the bag; we can't do anything about it now." And we certainly wouldn't make the scurrilous argument that we should get the death box in the hands of everyone to react against those who would use the death box for evil purposes.

On the matter of gun ownership for self defense, we're talking measures used to abate the level of crime. The argument is that if you were to arm more people, they would be able to defend themselves and others from would-be attackers. So for every number of attacks a percentage of them would be defended successfully. No gun advocate I've ever read has said gun ownership would end all crime 100%. But when it comes to common sense gun regulation that would slow the instance of, and abate the severity of, senseless violet attacks on public spaces, these same gun advocates argue that it's pointless because you can't stop all of them all of the time. They argue that because it wouldn't achieve a 100% success rate, it's pointless to regulate weapons of mass destruction.

Really, gun advocates are arguing that saving a percentage of lives that would otherwise have been lost is less important than the ability for them to own and use any gun at their own private discretion. They're saying losing the occasional classroom full of first-grade students is an acceptable price we pay for our liberties. Those liberties are exclusively: unlimited gun ownership.

I for one am sick of sacrificing children on the altar of gun rights. This goes to the heart of what Destroy:Ideas is all about. I cannot put ideology ahead of people.

But what are these rules? How can we prevent the next school massacre?

The relationships people have with guns vary greatly. People in rural areas have different needs than those in cities. Chicago has approximately 500 murders a year, so people there don't think more guns are a solution. But people who live in rural Montana do know that rifles are important tools to protect their property and livestock from predators such as wolves, bears and badgers. Because of this, I do not think a uniform code will work across the nation. However, there definitely has to be a way to safeguard this difference in law so guns aren't purchased in rural counties and delivered into urban centers where they are not used to ward off wolves but to commit violent crime, as the case of Washington D.C. shows.

The first changes have to be with poverty abatement, and health care access. If we can pretend that our violence here is every bit a threat to our society as violence in Iraq, we could do really positive things. Studies have shown poverty is the leading indicator of violent behavior. Similarly, economic inequality and social stratification are causes of violence and other criminal behavior. While crime rates in American have recently been falling to historic lows, they rose sharply as our equalizing institutions were dismantled in the 70s and 80s, and crime peaked in the early 1990s. (The internet played a large role in reducing crime rates as the internet is a democratizing leveler of social classes, where nobody has power over other people, and everyone can express their frustrations in non-violent ways.)

When it comes to health care, the US government already pays more than twice, per capita, what the average industrialized nation does on health care, yet doesn't achieve universal coverage, and the outcomes are lower. Incidentally, we could solve our long-term deficit problem immediately if we achieved truly universal health care. Providing access to health care can and will lead to lower rates of crime, especially violent crime. As there is a link between poverty and crime, there is also a link between health care access and poverty. Specifically, health care costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy, and send families into poverty every day.

Along with universal health care, we need emergency mental health services. These don't exist everywhere. Those that do exist trend to be nonprofit organizations, and their outreach isn't wide enough. And their resources are too little. I bet you didn't even know there was a 211 number anyone can dial on their phone to reach a nonprofit organization that can help guide people to these resources.

Studies show the majority of violent criminal offenders have mental illness, or mental developmental problems like fetal alcohol syndrome/affects. One study tested 16 death row inmates and all of them, 100%, had experienced brain trauma. What some would call "evil" is being found to simply be mental disordered/impairments.

These previous issues, I'm glad to say, are pretty noncontroversial. Most gun advocates I know aren't for government-run universal health coverage, but they do understand that providing better access to health services, especially mental health services, is an important step in mass murder abatement.

What about gun control?

To be more specific about the gun regulation steps I alluded to previously, we should look at a few common sense issues related to this idea.

In the previous few decades gun manufacturers have deliberately increased the lethality of guns in order to boost their profits. Their industry faced a problem: guns don't wear out and fewer people are entering the traditional gun markets (hunting and sport shooting). As a result, they have begun marketing to urban dwellers and survivalist fear mongers a fantasy of self defense. They increased round capacity, caliber size, and rate of fire in addition to making the arms smaller and more concealable. They also developed more lethal ammunition rounds, including rounds that splinter upon entry which only means the bullets are harder to remove. (A completely unnecessary feature for anyone who isn't a demented freak.)

Foreign arms manufacturers are also playing a larger role in the US market as other markets have been becoming more highly regulated. Surplus Russian and Chinese military weapons would previously be sold in third world countries, but there's now a huge market for these military-grade weapons in America.

Because of this utter lack of regulation, I propose:

Ammunition needs to be tracked better, and taxed the way we tax cigarettes. We generally recognize tobacco as a public health concern but not gun violence.
Ammunition types need to be regulated to remove unnecessary body mutilation features.
Handguns should have limited capacity. Nine rounds is plenty to scare off an intruder - if that is really the agenda. Larger magazines don't create a larger deterrent. Magazine replacement should require two hands to slow reload times.
High caliber weapons should be of the single action hunting variety only and limited to five rounds.
Shotguns should be limited to two rounds with single action.
Military style weapons (long rifles and carbines with high capacity magazines and semi-automatic function) should be kept in community armories or other licensed gun clubs. This should be sufficient to handle the "well regulated militia" clause of the second amendment. Military style weapons are not suitable for home protection nor for hunting, they're strictly for recreational and militia use.
Gun owners should be licensed - this is different than the checks we have now which are essentially honor based questions which don't have the answers screened - but a full written test and practical test. These licenses should be given grades for the different classes of guns, just like drivers licenses are given for each class of of vehicle. These licenses should be renewed in person every three to five years.
Each gun should also be licensed and registered just like cars.

What about people who don't follow the law?

Yeah, people don't follow the laws at all times, but most people seek to be law abiding, so we could catch a lot of these problems before someone has a mental breakdown, or experiences a transient life event that puts them in enough stress to go off the proverbial deep end.

There is certainly an element of society which lives in an informal economy, or black market. These people don't follow laws. But these people also don't commit mass atrocities like the ones we saw this past week. You also can't really compare the failing drug policies with proposed gun regulations because:

You can't grow guns in your closet
There's a profitable market for drugs
There is no market for mass murder

Over the past 30 years, over 80% of the guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally. This murdered in Newtown, CT borrowed the weapons from his mother. Even if this guy had a history of mental illness and was denied sale of a gun (he would have anyway because he was too young for a handgun), his mother didn't and wasn't. These mass murders are not committed by career criminals, and usually this is their first (and last) offense. We can't exclusively focus on keeping arms out of the hands of "bad guys" when it's not the "bad guys" who are committing these most heinous crimes, but the guy nobody would expect.

Furthermore, we have ~30,000 gun-related deaths in the USA every year. Only about ~10,000 of those are homicides. That leaves ~20,000 gun deaths in our country every year where nobody committed any intentional crime. I didn't go into the relationship between guns and suicide here, but the statistics on that are pretty remarkable.

I'm no expert, but these seem to be common sense solutions. They wouldn't stop every bad event every time, but it could reduce a percentage of them from happening at least. I just can't accept that recreational gun use is more important than the lives of children.

The contempt of men

2012-09-10T13:11:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter I sent off to Esquire after reading the cited article. My wife can attest that the article so upset me that I could literally do nothing until I finished writing and mailing this letter. I admit that in hindsight I forgot to mention a few additional points of contention, namely the sitcom genre which has always leaned on stupid men (Married with Children, Home Improvement, etc.), among other issues. But instead of adding them, I'll just post the whole letter as it was sent:

I have just finished reading the article by Stephen Marche titled “The Contempt of Women.” It was such a poorly devised article that I felt compelled to respond. I don’t know who Stephen Marche is, but from the content of the article it appears he’s completely ignorant of the growing body of academic feminist thought. He also shows that this “contempt for men” is a fabrication, and he’s really just showing a contempt for women.

Mr. Marche’s argument begins and ends with comedy. He argues that the self-deprecating humor of male comedians is a sign of how men have acquiesced to the notion that men are idiots to be viewed with contempt. Maybe Marche has never looked at the historical body of work by comedians the world over. Comedians like Charlie Chaplin who epitomized the bumbling fool. Teams of comedians like Abbott and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, the Marx Bros.; all of the comedy from these men showed idiotic men unaware of their foolishness. All of these men pre-feminist revolution, when women didn’t go to college.

And yet Marche will reference Louis C.K. to bolster his claim - a comedian who doesn’t point out the dark side of humanity to wallow in it, but to seek out the positive in the turd sandwich called life. A comedian who encourages men to step up and be men of distinction.

Marche also fails to realize that most of the successful female comedians over the years have had to lean on the stereotype that women are disgusting, irrational creatures who are also conniving bitches. This is hardly evidence that comedy has a contempt for men. Yet the accompanying sidebar suggests self-hating women in comedy are rare!

When Marche references media targeted at women as an example of contempt, he’s really just pointing out that men are treated in these stories the way women are treated in every other story. There is even a name for this: The Bechdel Test. Does a movie have a scene with one or more named women having back and forth dialogue about anything other than men? It seems like a low bar to reach, yet most major movies fail this test. Most movies only have one female lead. Women have always played a subservient role in media, as nothing more than eye candy, or sexual escapades. And when a couple of new stories come out where women treat men like complex beings from a female perspective, Mr. Marche would have us believe it’s because women have contempt for us.
Even in the pages of Esquire, women are eye candy, or they tell jokes while wearing intimate apparel. They can’t be given the same respect men in these pages receive.

As for the economic numbers, Yes, women are making the biggest growth in the job market, but that’s to be expected when there were so few of them previously. The only way for men to grow the same way is to push out women from those numbers. And we’re not talking about a finite number, because the job market is growing. A women entering the market isn’t pushing out a man.

It might be easier to just blame women for the failings of men, but it lacks personal responsibility. Men are responsible for their own fates, and women are attempting to have the same basic rights.

I’m just surprised and appalled such a poorly thought out article would even get written by a thinking human being, let alone past the editorial staff of such a powerful media establishment. But I guess my reaction is proof you did your job.

Steven Kippel

Cause and affect of egalitarianism and sexual violence

2012-07-19T14:00:00.002-07:00

The Christian blogosphere has recently exploded with some of the most vicious attacks I've ever seen from anyone, let alone those who are enjoined members of one Body.

It all started when Jared Wilson posted an excerpt from Douglas Wilson's (no relation) book, Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man on the Gospel-Driven Church blog.

The original blog posting didn't take the entire book's context into account, and offered only the context that Jared Wilson found how it should be relevant considering some book named 50 Shades of Grey has become a pop culture touchstone. Jared Wilson pointed specifically to how "sexual pathology is a perverted version of good, God-honoring, and body-protecting authority and submission between husbands and wives."

The quotation argues that there is a natural order of submission between men and women, and that egalitarianism has perverted that order, removing the authority from men and the submission from women, so that there is a new pathology which leads to "bondage and submission games" as well as "rape fantasies." Douglas Wilson is arguing that we as a culture have rebelled against "the biblical concepts of true authority and submission" and have thus brought perverted, violent forms of authority and submission into the culture.

Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the "soon to be made willing" heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.

A lot of people have rejected this claim outright saying that rape has existing long before egalitarianism was ever a majority opinion. Certainly long before the Enlightenment era. As anyone familiar with these subjects know, rapists aren't trying to have free sex, they're seeking power and control over another person. This has been seen throughout history where rape has been used against defeated armies and cultures as an assertion of power and a humiliation of the defeated. To be fair to Douglas Wilson, he's not speaking about rape itself, but rape fantasies, and other sexual fetishes where power or domination are used. In fact, he's claiming that the rape fantasies are indeed about power and dominion.

But, he's making a strong correlation here that these fantasies are the result of a broken authority system he claims the Bible teaches. He calls it "complementarianism," which is just another word for patriarchy. And he may even have some point here if not for the fact that what he calls this "sexual pathology" has also been around much longer than the Enlightenment and egalitarian thought.

Douglas Wilson may even argue against this point by saying those people throughout history had an individual rebellion against the "biblical concepts of true authority and submission" even if there wasn't a cultural rebellion. However, his counter argument would be placed in peril because he's now finding himself moving the goalposts whenever someone criticizes his point.

Which is exactly what he has been doing as he's come to his own defense during this uproar.

The main offense taken by the Douglas Wilson passage is when Mr. Wilson describes the natural mechanisms of "true authority and submission" during sexual congress. He says his description is "the way the world is" (his emphasis), as if a fixed rule. He compares this reality with physics, saying "we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it."

So we come to the thrust of the objection, that Douglas Wilson blames rape fantasies on egalitarianism. (Emphasis mine.)

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

Douglas Wilson is clearly blaming egalitarianism for a sexual pathology which leads to rape fantasies. And I want to write about that more in depth, but I first want to talk about what he's describing as the "biblical concepts of true authority and submission." He describes the man as conquering and colonizing his wife, while she surrenders. This is metaphorical, coloring a picture of the sexual act, but as we should be aware, words matter. Douglas Wilson is using martial language to describe a sexual encounter. The same way an invading force conquers and colonizes an indigenous culture, and that culture surrenders and accepts the invading force.

There's nothing so much wrong with word pictures, but words matter, and describing a sexual encounter in terms usually reserved for a violent military action does trigger parallels to violent sexual encounters. It doesn't hearken to mutual submission, nor to a loving, consensual encounter.

In Douglas Wilson's defense, he compares his terminology to the terminology used in Song of Songs. "Her neck is like the tower of David" for conquer (4:4), and "You are a garden locked up" for colonize (4:12). Of course the Tower of David passage is talking about beauty and adornments, not in conquest (a tower doesn't do much conquering). I'm clueless how the garden image has any resemblance to colonization.

Finally, Douglas Wilson uses the most disingenuous response to the egalitarian phrase I've ever seen. Mr. Wilson flippantly said his critics "need to retake their ESL [English as a Second Language] class", but his shoehorn apology really takes the cake.

The emphasis needs to be placed on "egalitarian pleasuring party" -- the kind of party where the sexes of the participants don't matter, because all that matters is that two or more people come to orgasm. I was by implication lauding a complementarian pleasure party. The term of opprobrium there was egalitarian, not pleasure.

Are we supposed to believe that, given the context, Douglas Wilson was trying to make "egalitarian" into a free love thing instead of the widely accepted and understood term to describe equality of value, rights, opportunity, power, wealth and influence? Nobody has used the term, to my knowledge, to ever describe sexual liberation. And what's even more laughable is that Mr. Wilson himself is not using the term in this manner.

This passage from his book is clearly contrasting egalitarianism between equality and authority. That's his entire point in discussing the topic - the rebellion against authority and submission. He says that the rebellion against patriarchy is causing this pathology. That rejecting authority and submission leads to a pathology which fetishizes authority and submission. The egalitarian is the villain, and the answer is honoring authority.

He directly ties egalitarianism with the male authority and female submissive "in marriage." He's not saying that the husband's failure to act authoritatively nor the wife's failure to act submissively leads to adultery or homosexuality, he's saying the failure to honor "true authority and true submission" leads to " sexual 'bondage and submission games,' along with very common rape fantasies."

To pretend he meant anything else makes his snide comment about lacking English language skills seem hypocritical.

In conclusion, this is the end result of complementarian theology. Even though the Bible directly contradicts this notion. "The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:4) But because of this twisted view of God and scriptures, complementarians like Douglas Wilson oppose egalitarianism, especially between men and women. It gets so perverted that the passage Jared Wilson cites from Douglas Wilson's book ends by declaring,

True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity.

Trusting God or shirking responsibility?

2012-05-01T10:54:00.000-07:00

Maybe sometimes when I say I just want to "trust God" and put something "in His hands," I'm really just saying I don't want to take responsibility for something. The feeling of "freedom" in trusting God may just be the freedom from obligation. I'm not so sure that's exactly what God meant when he said to trust Him. The Biblical stories show a God who entrusts men and women with responsibilities and their response is to trust that God had a plan. But now it seems like when we say to trust God it means we remove responsibility from us and place responsibility onto God.

When God Talks Back

2012-04-12T16:18:00.000-07:00

Family values v. Free market economics

2012-04-09T13:10:00.000-07:00

I'm an American, and in America we have a two-party system. One party claims to support "family values" and economic liberties. This party has become incredibly successful in its marketing this idea. They make the claim that "we're the party of family values" and nobody bothers to even question the idea.

But there's a problem in America for this party. Young people in this country care more about their family ties than their occupations. This is a problem for them because their economic model is built on greed, and the new generation cares less about money than the preceding generations. They care about relationships more than materialism.

The economic model of the party of family values believes "hunger is a great motivator." They call children who want to be close to their families "lazy" and would prefer young adults moving out of state to find jobs rather than maintaining their family bonds. Their policies find migration to be a positive economic function to provide competition in the market in order to reduce labor costs, but it also pulls families apart.

I'm not here today to provide a solution, I just don't think one can claim to be the party of family values while promoting economic policies which cause domestic turmoil, prevent young people from getting married and starting families, and pull apart families for the goal of greed.

It's a shame there isn't a third way in America.

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Denunciations of Denominationalism

2012-03-12T10:24:00.002-07:00

Courtesy Prof. John Stackhouse

Stackhouse lecture on harm-reduction sites

2011-10-26T16:53:00.000-07:00

This is a controversial subject, but it is important. The video is John Stackhouse, Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College, with Meera Bai discussing harm-reduction sites that provide a safe environment for drug addicts to receive counseling, medical care, rehabilitation, and clean needles.

If you don't have time to watch the video (it's about an hour long), you can read an article on the subject at ChristianWeek.org.

I have come to the opinion that I cannot support ideas or policies that cost lives. Similarly, I cannot oppose ideas or policies that would save lives. There is a grey area where an idea or policy will cost lives and also save lives. That's more nuanced. But if there is something that can be done that saves lives that doesn't cost lives, it seems pretty clear cut that action is appropriate or even necessary.

Watch live streaming video from regentcollege at livestream.com

The end result of Muscular Christianity

2011-10-03T13:27:00.000-07:00

It's just too much. I don't really have words.

I've said it was dangerous theologically to prop up this alpha male masculinity as a model for Christian behavior, saying anything less means you're less godly. Yet it continues, and grows daily.

Stupid, idiotic pastors of questionable character keep using violence to sell their version of the Gospel of Peace, like somehow the message of the cross just wouldn't make it into the minds of young men unless someone was kicked in the balls first. As if the love of God to rescue all of creation from certain doom wasn't good enough, so we have to make somebody bleed first.

And now we have a story from a congregation in Tulsa, Oklahoma who stages boxing matches as part of their ministry. And now Muscular Christianity has taken a life.

Stop it. Just stop it.

Why we are adopting

2011-07-21T09:21:00.000-07:00

I wrote this about a month ago for the local Christian news magazine to be distributed to all of the churches in the area. When I submitted it, I was informed of the serendipitous nature of things as the next issue was going to focus on foster care and adoption, so it fits in quite well. However, I had to shorten it down considerably. It's over 1400 words, and the normal article space is 500 words. The version that will be published should be just under 800 words. To this is the full version.

At the end of the movie Schindler’s List, Oskar Schindler breaks down in tears. “I could have got more out,” he cries, “I could have got more.” A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit the Schindler factory in Krakow, Poland. Schindler had saved the lives of over 1,100 Jews during World War II, yet here he is admonishing himself because he could have done more.

“Why did I keep the car? Ten people right there. Ten people. Ten more people.” He intimates this thought to his friend Itzhak Stern. He takes his lapel pin off and continues, “This pin. Two people. This is gold. Two more people. He would have given me two for it, at least one. One more person. A person, Stern. For this. I could have gotten one more person,” he’s sobbing at this point, “and I didn’t! And I … I didn’t!”

This is one of the most powerful scenes in any movie ever produced. It’s also a stark reminder of the eternal reality we as Christians must face. Do we honestly believe what we say we believe? Is the world facing real eternal peril?

Jesus was very serious about this. He brought it up multiple times. One young man came to him asking what he could do to inherit eternal life, and Jesus responded, “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Mark 10:21) In the same way, he told his disciples, “Those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.” (Luke 14:33)

And I’m reminded once again of Oskar Schindler lamenting his inaction, “I threw away so much money.” He wasted his money on the temporary pleasures of life when he could have saved lives with the money and resources he had at his disposal.

There are a lot of very strong verses in the Bible about rich people. They aren’t opposed to wealth, but they do warn about what comes with riches. Temptations, idolatry, murder, slander, all forms of evil. I’ve always thought these verses were for other people. I don’t have much money, much less than a lot of people around here. But I live in the

United States of America

, and even though I’m well below the median income level, I’m still in the top 5% of the wealthiest people in the world (according to globalrichlist.com).

I’m not alone in this regard. Earlier this year, Fidelity Investments released the results of a survey that found 46% of millionaires “didn’t feel wealthy in 2009.” In fact, 58% of them claimed they needed $1.75 million to feel wealthy. In survey after survey, the majority of people don’t believe they are rich even when they are millionaires.

And I am still in the richest 5%. Half of the world’s population lives on less than $2.50 per day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. I can’t even buy lunch for $10.

Needless to say, I cannot ignore these verses, like in 1 Timothy 6, that commands those who are rich to not “put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God.” Or in James 1, which instructs the rich to “take pride in their humiliation.”

But what is the response to all of this? Should I just feel bad about myself for having so much while many are perishing in this world?

The Apostle Paul commands us, “to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.” (1 Timothy 6:18) It leaves me with one solution: If I am blessed with good things, I am to give to those in need. God has provided me with food, clothing and a home. Anything past this is luxury for much of humanity. Certainly I can look at what I have and make sacrifices to my comfort to even save one more person.

The Apostle John went even further saying, “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.” (1 John 3:17-18) Does this really mean that if I hold onto my possessions when another is in need that God’s love is not in me?

James teaches us that, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27) This seems to be a very straight-forward verse, yet why is it so radical? This word “religion” means “worship,” or “ceremonial observance.” Why doesn’t the Church view caring for orphans and widows as a vital part of our worship?

So this is what my wife and I are doing: Last year we started the process of adopting children. We contacted our local Department of Public and Social Services, had our background checks, attended many hours of training, and now we’re on the list to receive children any day now. This is something just about everyone can do, and unlike the common perception it doesn’t cost a thing.

We took a look at our budget, and we’ve decided the needs of children are more important to us, and to God, than owning two cars, owning a home, frequent restaurant visits, cable television, etc. These things that seem so inconsequential to middle-class

America

were barriers to “pure and faultless” worship. They were (literally) a car we sold to buy beds for the children. I don’t have a gold lapel pin, but I would have been willing to sell that as well if I could have “gotten one more.”

These are meager sacrifices for what seems like nothing compared to what Oskar Schindler managed, but we’re a meager family doing what we can.

Schindler lived just miles from the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camps, a real and present evil. We also visited these camps, and it’s really a life-changing experience. But we live in a world where 22,000 children die each day due to poverty-related issues like hunger, and preventable diseases. These are things we don’t see on a daily basis because they live in South-East Asia, or Sub-Saharan Africa.

But it also happens closer to home, and we ignore it, and even pass laws to keep it out of our neighborhoods - someplace out of sight. Nearly 21% of American children are living in poverty, facing food insecurity, poor health, abuse and neglect. With our income, we cannot afford to adopt a child from overseas, but we can help a few here in the Coachella Valley who are in need. I can’t make excuses anymore.

Jesus expressed how much it takes to enter the Kingdom of Heaven in severe terms - over and over again. At one point he even said that, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters - yes even their own life - such a person cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) These are probably the harshest recorded saying of his. Yet I think I now understand somewhat what they mean. We are adopting children instead of having our own biological children. These aren’t children we will ever know, but we’re giving them up in order to “care for orphans in their distress.”

Jesus also taught us, “If you only greet your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:46-48) It is (generally) easy to love your own family, and stick with your own kin, but it takes a work of God to love without expectation.

Of course these children will be ours. They will be loved, and they will love us. We aren’t walking away from anyone, but into a new kind of love. God is the author of love, and giver of good gifts. These children are great gifts from God, and we praise him for the wonderful opportunity to care for these little ones. In receiving them we receive God. As Jesus said, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.” (Mark 9:37)

You see, it is always pure joy to serve our Lord. What may seem like a sacrifice of time, money or possessions always ends up being worth 100-times that in the economy of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 19:29)

Putting the Kingdom first

2011-07-19T13:04:00.000-07:00

When anyone addresses the words of Jesus concerning money, there is always the same answer given.

Jesus said:

"Sell your possessions and give to the poor." (Luke 12:33)
"You cannot serve God and Money." (Matthew 6:24)
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." (Matthew 6:19)
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25)

And the answer is, "God wants us to put HIM first!" That is, Jesus only meant we cannot love money more than we love God.

Of course Jesus didn't say, "You can serve two masters, so long as you only work for one of them on the evenings." He said, "You cannot serve two masters."

But what exactly does that mean? How does one tell if they're serving God or money?

Maybe you can see how much time you spend at work earning money and compare it with the time you spend working for the Kingdom of God. Maybe you can compare how much money you spend on yourself with how much you spend on the poor.

They will use this answer to weasel out of what Jesus plainly says, and then still fail to live up to their own definition.

If you have money and you aren't supporting orphans and widows with it, you are serving money, not God. (James 1:27) If you own anything and do not use it to help those in need, you are serving money, not God. (1 John 3:17)

We live in a society that is the wealthiest society to ever exist throughout time. We don't need most of the stuff we have, yet we keep moving the goalposts to include our luxuries under what is acceptable to God. Having two cars is more important than having one, and providing for a family in need. Having a home office is more important than using the dining room table in a smaller home and using the excess to provide housing for the homeless. Having a cappuccino maker is more important than providing water for a village without it.

We pat ourselves on the back thinking we're good because we tithe to the local church (to pay the pastor's salary), even give extra to a few charities, and even help out at the shelter during the holidays, while the poor continue to struggle. The hungry continue to hunger. The thirsty continue to thirst. The homeless remain on the streets.

We tell ourselves we don't love money, but we spend thousands on fertilization treatments when there are thousands of orphans available for adoption.

We wish we could give more, yet we spend excessively on creature comforts and entertainment.

Quenching the Spirit in women

2011-07-08T11:02:00.000-07:00

In 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul writes,

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all

Yet the Church has become expert at doing just this. In fact it's codified in many denominations, and held up as an important value for Christian ministry. I am, of course talking about the practice of excluding women from ministry.

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul lists off a series of spiritual gifts. Each of these are given to those within the Body of Christ. These include both men and women. They include wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning spirits, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. The rest of the chapter goes on to express how important each member of the body is, and over the next couple of chapters how the gifts should be expressed in worship.

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Yet women are excluded in our congregations today.

Even though Paul admonishes, "the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable," (emphasis mine) their spiritual gifts are relegated to support their husbands, or to minister to other women and children only.

Taking this last verse in tandem with 1 Peter 3:7, we've really got a crisis in hand.

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

Yet women are excluded in our congregations today.

They're not excluded in the way that women are segregated in mosques, and for a completely different reason, but it's the fact that the spirit is quenched in women by disallowing their use in the greater congregation.

This is true of men too, as I have said before, but it's especially true of women. Our church structures disallow the use of gifts for everyone but the professional Christians. Yet women aren't allowed to be professional Christians. And even congregations that are more open to congregational involvement in worship tend to hold women back from full participation.

Stop it. Just stop it.

Blaming women

2011-06-02T19:19:00.000-07:00

The Church has been struggling over the past few decades with the drop in male attendance at services. There have been many answers to why we have this phenomenon. But it's not unique to the Christian world. The secular world is also seeing a trend of fewer men seeking college degrees, and fewer men in the work force.

Unfortunately, too many people come up with the same answer: women.

Yes. They blame women for the failures of men.

Here are a few statistics:

Women are more likely than men to graduate from high school
Only 44% of undergraduates at community or four-year colleges are men
Female college students have higher grade point averages than men, and are more likely to graduate
Among young adults, 35% of women and 27% of men possessed bachelor degrees in 2009
Women are 60% more likely than men to earn a bachelor's degree by the time they're 23
More women than men are earning advanced degrees; 9% of women and 6% of men
Nearly 6 out of 10 adults holding advanced degrees between the ages of 25 and 29 are women
There are now more women than men in the workforce, with 3/4 of the jobs lost in the Great Recession by men
A third of men aged 22-34 still live at home with their parents; in the ages 18-24, 56% of men and 48% of women still live with their parents

Looking at these statistics, we see that young men are checking out. They're choosing to be slackers while young women are being more disciplined.

Yet the blame falls on women? You have to be kidding me.

I've heard guys say it started with women's suffrage. Yeah, women voting has made men less inclined to make their own lives better.

Or they'll blame the feminist movement of the 1970s, saying women entered the work force and made everything worse for men.

This is completely and demonstrably false.

Woodoodles and Floopdeens

Let's do an object lesson:

There are 100 Woodoodles who work in a mine. They go to work every day and mine 20 kilos of diamonds. One day, the foreman says they need 40 kilos of diamonds, so he's going to bring in 100 Floopdeens, and expand the mine. Over time, as the mine grows, the Floopdeen workers grow as the mine grows to accommodate them. Now there are 100 Floopdeens mining 18 kilos of diamonds, but there are only 80 Woodoodles and they're only mining 14 kilos.

When there are openings for 100 Woodoodles and 100 Floopdeens, why are there only 80 Woodoodles when there were 100? Should the foreman hire a few more Floopdeens to cover the Woodoodle labor that isn't getting done?

It's possible that some Woodoodles are upset that Floopdeens are now working in their mines, but that's irrational behavior, and may even be racist. It's not the Floopdeens' fault the Woodoodles don't want to work any more. It's not their fault they're hated by some of the Woodoodles.

There is clearly a different answer for this problem, because laming women for the failings of men is ridiculous.Women don't keep men from going to college, or earning good grades. And women don't keep men from attending church services.

Belonging and purpose

I've been attending a lot of parenting classes recently as my wife and I are preparing to take foster children with the intention to adopt. In the last class, it was stressed over and over than children act out when they do not feel belonging or significance. These two things are the basic desires of everybody once food, shelter and security are met.

They explained that in the agrarian society, the children worked alongside their parents, so they had significance, and belonging. Now children are to be seen and not heard. They're to go to school where belonging is lacking, and pass tests where significance is lacking. At home, children aren't asked to carry much of the load either.

This is why I think men are failing - especially in the church communities. Our institutions don't provide belonging or significance for men. And this isn't because women are present, it's because they're treated as sheep or machines.

Over the past thirty years, when the churches began noticing the trend of male attendance reduction, we also saw a new type of church structure being formed. These congregations moved away from an elder-centered community, and more into a cult-of-personality around an individual man. It was this one man's vision, and it was this one man's authority that the congregation was asked to submit to. And I know many men who have become sick of this, and have left the typical church community because they weren't given a voice, and when they attempted to exercise their spiritual gifts, they were admonished and sometimes told to leave.

It's not because women took over, or the churches started catering to the needs of women than caused men to leave. It was because the alpha-male model of vertical authority took over, and pushed out the other men.

Bigger, stronger, faster

Recently, I watched a documentary called Bigger Stronger Faster, a discovery of the American infatuation with steroid use and bulging muscles. The host and narrator talked about how the 1980s introduced a new model of masculinity into American culture; a lone wolf with rippling muscles, and kickass attitude. One guest showed how the GI Joe action figure went from a normal-sized guy in the '60s to a muscular guy in the '80s to an inhuman size in the '90s.

Over these years, male culture has praised machismo over brains. Brawn over skills.

Since the 1980s, we’ve been inundated with a new image of man. It was no longer Sean Connery’s multi-skilled gentleman, Cary Grant’s casual elegance, or even John Wayne’s meek toughness. It was Arnold’s biceps, Jean Claude’s speed, Sly Stallone’s will, and Hulk Hogan’s anger.

Men have sloughed off the complete man in favor of the warrior.

Being smart isn’t manly. Being gentle is the price we pay to keep the company of women (but who needs them, right?). Manners are for sissies; ties are for idiots.

And along with this machismo comes homophobia. Having a nice hair cut is gay. Being fit is gay. Wearing nice clothes is gay. Cooking is gay. Reading books is gay. Doing well in school is gay.

It seems like the more we see how gay men are exactly the same as us, the less we want to be like ourselves. So we turn to being fat sloths to get away from the appearance of being gay.

The answer

I'm not really interested in the cultural aspects of masculinity as much as I am the Christian aspects. What can we do to help men in the church?

Look to Christ, of course.

The first chapter of Hebrews says that Jesus Christ is "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being." (v.3) If we want to be perfect as the Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), we should model our church communities and our lives after the Son. (1 Peter 2:21)

Church discipline should no longer follow the feudal system of vertical authority. This is not how Christ lead his disciples, nor is it how the Apostles taught the leaders to behave.

If Jesus is the "exact representation" of God, and he came not to be served but to serve (Matthew 20:28; Luke 12:37), than God's example for us is to serve one another. (Luke 22:26-27; Galatians 5:13) This is especially true of the leaders. Too often the leadership demands service to their needs, and they punish those who do not fall in line with their vision. This is contrary to the way Christ exemplified and taught.

Mark 10:42-45

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Peter told the leaders the same thing, as Jesus taught him as he washed Peter's feet. (John 13:12-17)

1 Peter 5:2-3

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Leaders, provide significance in the congregation for all participants. Find the gifts of everyone and encourage them to use them. Don't hinder their use. You're purpose is not to guide the "sheep" but to provide a place for them to have belonging and significance. You encourage men to be leaders, yet won't let them lead within their church community because you're the leader. Let them lead. Let other men have visions.

This is the same for women. Women find significance in hearing others, so it's not difficult for women's ministries to grow by providing a place of belonging. But women have other gifts as well, and they need to be allowed to participate fully in the congregation as well. All members need to have belonging and significance, and all of their spiritual giftings need to be encouraged and allowed.

Hate America

2011-05-09T15:40:00.000-07:00

This idea is a continuation of my previous post about this same topic, Undivided devotion to the Lord. Since it is the same argument but a different text of scripture, I will simply just copy that argument verbatim, with just a few modifications. This passage is Luke 14:26

Jesus says,

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his country, fellow-citizens, place of birth—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

This is a powerful passage. This pericope isn't about patriotism and politics, but about discipleship. It is one of those passages that the American church has done away with completely, or at least largely marginalized. It's usually explained away by saying it's an order of magnitude. The strongest wording on it comes from David Platt in his book Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream. He says it means our devotion to Christ should be so strong, our earthly relationships should look like hate in comparison. Most people just say it means you can't love man more than God, and should it come down to it, you should give up your relationships - for example - if your family were to expel you because of your beliefs.

Family is placed even above patriotism. The duty to your family is before the nation. (There are some ultra-nationalistic people who claim duty to country comes first, but in general, the family comes first.) This is why I even went back to talking about family before I went into patriotism.

If the family is the highest priority for Christians, even above our duty to the nation, how much more does this passage apply when you put it in context of politics? Or employment? Or any lesser thing?

Yet I assume phrasing this passage in this way may be even more scandalous for many.

Christ immediately follows this saying,

Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’

I added emphasis here. It's usually said, "count the cost." Christ is challenging us to really consider what earthly attachments we possess, and how they affect our place in the Kingdom of Heaven. He wants us to let go of our attachments to this world.

We're very much attached to our national politics. Our government. Our money ... Isn't that why we have protests against taxation? We want to hold onto our money. Some are calling for revolution, because they're willing to fight and kill to hold onto the treasures they've built up in this world.

If anyone comes to me and does not hate America, such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not submit to government oppression while you carry out my work cannot be my disciple.

Understanding the evildoer

2011-04-27T14:37:00.000-07:00

Matthew 9:11
When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

Purpose driven creation

2011-04-15T11:01:00.000-07:00

In many circles, it seems like the good deeds prepared for us (Ephesians 2:10) are primarily for evangelic purposes. That we love our neighbors in order to win them over to the Kingdom. We care for the needy in order to redeem their souls.

This is contrasted with the actual reason we're called to do this, which is obedience, and actually participating in the Kingdom. It is the very purpose of the Gospel as it is pertains to living our lives as sojourners in this land. In fact, we were created specifically to do these works.

We aren't called to a new way of living as much as we're called back to our very purpose in being. Saved from our selfish sinful nature which has perverted our created purpose to serve one another.

Undivided devotion to the Lord

2011-04-10T16:36:00.000-07:00

I was just reading a bit in 1 Corinthians, and I came to a striking realization. Let me just post what it says here with a minor tweak, but with the same reason.

I would like you to be free from concern. An unpolitical man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs — how he can please the Lord. But a political man is concerned about the affairs of this world — how he can serve his country — and his interests are divided. An unpolitical woman is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a political woman is concerned about the affairs of this world — how she can serve her country. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

This is a powerful passage. This pericope isn't about patriotism and politics, but about marriage. It is one of those passages that the American church has done away with completely. They've killed it; expunged it from the Bible. They want nothing to do with it. They value family above all else. It is the most godly thing you can do. Family is an idol.

Yet there are many fellowships in this country that refuse to hire a pastor who isn't married. They look down on anyone who would serve in the church body who doesn't have a family.

Family is placed even above patriotism. The duty to your family is before the nation. (There are some ultra-nationalistic people who claim duty to country comes first, but in general, the family comes first.) This is why I even went back to talking about family before I went into patriotism.

If the family is the highest priority for Christians, even above our duty to the nation, how much more does this passage apply when you put it in context of politics? Or employment? Or any lesser thing?

Yet I assume phrasing this passage in this way may be even more scandalous for many.

Before this passage, Paul instructed,

What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

I added emphasis here, for Paul is opening this whole teaching up to anything we have in this world. To let go of our attachments to this world.

We're very much attached to our national politics. Our government. Our money ... Isn't that why we have protests against taxation? We want to hold onto our money. Some are calling for revolution, because they're willing to fight and kill to hold onto the treasures they've built up in this world.

From now on those who have national identity should live as if they do not.

The evolution of Orthodoxy

2011-03-25T10:07:00.000-07:00

It struck me this morning. The definition of what a Christian is has changed significantly over time.

The Apostles Creed is this,

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

Amen.

This creed has long been the very basics to claim orthodoxy. If we were ecumenical in this, and made this our basis for communion, we could really claim to believe in "the holy catholic church." As it stands, each of us, and especially institutionalized bodies, add to this creed their own bits. And then they make the claim that these additions are essential to the whole matter, and their understanding is the one true understanding which is "biblical" and authoritative. And in doing so, they're already disposed of the belief in the "holy catholic church."

It may be anything here. I'll just provide a few examples from my own personal experience.

The bible is inerrant and infallible
Biologic evolution is incompatible with faith
Marxist economic theory is contrary to Scripture
American Conservative political ideology is godly (I've literally heard someone say, "I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Christian.")
Women must not have authority over a man in any way
"Big bang" cosmology is demonic
The Trinity is hierarchal
God must not be addressed with a feminine name or virtues
You must receive the gift of tongues
Baptism is fully submerged, and never of a child

I'm sure all of us can add in things to this list. My point is that every tradition includes their own demands to be included in orthodoxy, essentially cutting the holy catholic church into bits.

I know a lot of people who don't really "go to church" anymore. They're not withdrawing from the church, they're being pushed away. They don't fit into the pastor's agenda, their beliefs are toxic, or they voted for the wrong person. Maybe they watch movies with the wrong MPAA rating, or listen to the wrong kinds of music. Maybe they want real fellowship instead of kowtowing to the agenda of the church expansion plan.

They're making it harder to enter the Kingdom of God. By including so many litmus tests, we're preventing people from fellowshipping with us, adding schism into the body in place of unity.

The irony is, Jesus made it hard to enter the Kingdom of God, telling those who would enter it to "count the cost." Yet his litmus test was to love God and love others, in a sacrificial way. We're turned this around completely, and we make it hard because others aren't sacrificing enough for us.

Their hearts are far from me

2011-03-21T14:03:00.000-07:00

It is not enough that we worship the Lord with a fervent heart, and a steadfast loyalty. The prophets reign down woes on those who worship the Lord with all of the proper religious fixings, yet remain callous to the social inequality and suffering of the poor outside their doors.

James writes these words to us today, when the world is smaller than ever, and our doorstep reaches all the way around the world,

Religion deemed pure by our heavenly Father is this: When we care for the orphan, the widow and oppressed. When we do not conform to the powers of this world.

A question of Universalim

2011-03-10T08:48:00.000-08:00

The internets are abuzz with criticism of Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. They are accusing Rob Bell of Universalism. Is this true? I don't know, I've only read two reviews of his actual book (not the teaser video) and one said he was and one said he wasn't. Regardless of what I think, everyone has to struggle with these questions.

Our modern view of hell has been shaped by writings of fiction or allegory outside of theological purview, like Dante's Divine Comedy. The Reform movement lead to a binary belief in "one saved always saved" and the opposite, "once damned, always damned." Yet the Bible itself isn't a systematic theology book, no matter how strongly people suggest it's "clearly" detailed. There appear to be different views on both heaven and hell in the Bible. To hold such a narrow view of both is to discount other passages in the scriptures.

This isn't surprising, because every dispensation of the Church on earth holds up some passages and ignores others.

So I simply have a series of questions for those who hold that Heaven is where faithful Christians go when they die, and Hell is where unbelievers will suffer for eternity once they die.

What do you make of 1 Peter 3:19-20?

After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits — to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

What about the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds, still the benchmark for orthodox faith?

He descended into hell.

If hell is eternal, when Christ ministered to the souls imprisoned there, wouldn't all souls past present and future have been there?

If Christ indeed ministered to only the spirits from the past, why would he be excluded from doing the same for those of the future? After the advent of Christ on earth the rules changed, so after the resurrection everyone is held account differently?

What about the traditional view, held long before Christ's coming, that Sheol was a place all souls went in waiting for judgement? Christ himself uses this view in the Parable of Lazarus. (Luke 16:19-31) The Apocalypse of Zephaniah (which predates Christ) describes Sheol this way.

The Book of Enoch (approx same date range as the Apocalypse of Zephaniah) describes Sheol has having four sections: one where the faithful saints blissfully await Judgment Day, one where the moderately good await their reward, one where the wicked are punished and await their Judgment at the resurrection, and the last where the wicked who do not even warrant resurrection are tormented. Wouldn't an ancient Hebrew text have been influenced by the views of Sheol of the ancient Jewish faith?

These are things to ponder.