We had an election yesterday in my home state of Alabama, a run-off for Senate between two candidates that were largely unpopular, but for (I believe) different reasons.
One candidate was a good person who a lot of people know and like, but he had a lot of support from "the Swamp" (as Washington DC insiders are known), and how he got into his position in the first place bothered a lot of people (he was appointed by a governor that, as attorney general, he was supposed to be investigating; a governor that, after the appointment, was forced to resign by the next AG). He also ran a very negative campaign, and believe it or not that doesn't go over well here in Alabama. We're still people who prefer you tell us what you have done and believe you can do rather than how bad the other guy is.
The other candidate was a man who had been elected to the state Supreme Court twice and been forced to step aside twice for, basically, not carrying out the rulings of the highest court in the land. This made him a hero to a lot of people, who saw a guy who was willing to 'stand up' against creeping (or galloping) liberalism. But to many others, he was seen as a guy who put himself above the law, in addition to being inarticulate when he wasn't giving a prepared speech.
In some ways, it was a lot like the last Presidential election, which for many of us came down to two unlikeable candidates with serious flaws.
So some of my friends decided their only choice was to not vote.
I appreciate their stand. They felt they couldn't, in good conscious, vote for either candidate, and I can understand that sentiment. Many of these people, in the last presidential election, took a similar approach by either not voting or writing in the name of somebody who had no chance of winning but allowed them to be at peace with their conscious.
I get that.
A lot of people in my home state apparently felt that way in this Senate run-off. Participation was low, where I heard numbers as low as 12 to 15 percent of the potential voters actually turned out to vote.
So between all the people who just didn't get motivated to get out and vote, and those who felt they couldn't vote in good conscious, that means my single vote carried the value of about 10 people (roughly 300,000 people voted out of over 3 million eligible voters). My vote had the strength of 10!
That's not exactly right, of course. Some of those 3 million voters are Democrats in this heavily Republican state, so the actual number of eligible Republican voters would be less than 3 million, but not by much (by the way, the total turnout of Democratic voters in the Democratic primary equaled less than the total number received by the leading Republican in the primary, which doesn't bode well for the Democrat in the December election).
But you can see how I, flush with power, am excited to say that at least nine of my fellow citizens have given me their ballot; maybe not actually given it to me, but abdicated their power by not showing up.
I appreciate that.
Bad candidates or not, we still are involved in a process whereby "We the People" elect our leaders. If we get bad candidates, maybe that's because so few of us actually get involved in the process, or care enough to vote. Something like fewer than 5 percent of the eligible voters in the United States have ever given to a political candidate - not that giving money is the only way to be involved, but it certainly is a pretty good sign of a person's commitment.
So by choosing to not participate, those people have given those of us who do vote power over their very lives, their laws, their rights, their citizenship.
To which I say, thank you.
I take that power willingly. If I can only get more of you to not vote, my individual power will grow to - who knows? - maybe one day I'll be the king-maker (or Governor-maker, Senator-maker, President-maker)! Maybe even one day I'll write myself in and hold all those offices together!
See, I keep participating in the system, no matter how bad it is, because it's the system we have and if I don't vote, then I'm leaving my future in the hands of people who may not have my best interest at heart. And while one simple abstention may not seem to affect much in the big picture, some day it will.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like the choices that my fellow citizens seem to be giving me either. The candidate I support seems to rarely get out of the primary; and the one I vote for in the final election, even if I simply dislike that person less than I dislike the other, very often loses.
But you can't win if you don't play the game; you can't have a say in self-governing if you're not willing to suck it up sometimes and make a tough choice.
As I told a good friend, who decided to write in a candidate for President because he couldn't in good conscious vote for either of the two major party candidates, by not voting or by voting for someone you know can't win, you are essentially allowing someone else to make the most important decision of your civic life for you.
And for that, once again I have to say, "Thank you."
Unfortunately, the person I voted for doesn't always win. But if enough of you stop voting, maybe one day soon my vote will be the only one that counts!
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Monday, September 25, 2017
The NFL, protests, and getting what we tolerate
"We the People."
That is one of the most sacred lines in our country's history; the famous three words that begin the preamble to the Constitution.
"We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union ..."
The hope was that the government of the United States would always be subject to the "will" of the people, who ultimately would decide who their leaders would be (as opposed to those leaders coming to power by right of birth, wealth, or military might, the three means which had historically been the basis for leadership throughout much of the world's history).
We were never meant to be a true democracy, for that would be unwieldy. Can you imagine having national referendums on every law suggested, on every bill that was introduced? Plus, a pure democracy opens up the tyranny of the majority; a mere 50 percent plus one could decide to implement a host of laws and rulings that are abusive to the minority of people. Therefore we have representative government, whereby we elect people to represent us in government. However, in theory at least, we still have the ability to recall the people who we feel no longer represent us the way we want to be represented, who enough of us feel may be taking us in a direction we don't like.
But "we the people" is not only an idea in government.
"We the people" also describes the free market, capitalism. While the United States is no longer the shining example of free market economy it once was (the USA ranks 12th in economic freedom, according to the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal), we're still to a large extent a market driven economy.
If people don't like where they live, they move.
If people don't like a product, they don't buy it.
If people don't like what they see, they don't watch.
(Let's be clear - you can't always move from an area you don't like; sometimes you're forced to buy a product you don't like because it's the only one offered or best available; sometimes you watch things you'd rather not watch because the choices are so limited. I get all that, but generally speaking ...)
This weekend, in response to statements made by the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, a majority of NFL players across the league joined what had been a relatively few of their peers and decided to not stand for the National Anthem. One team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, under the direction of their head coach Mike Tomlin, did not go out on the field for the national anthem in direct violation of league rules - although one player, West Point grad and decorated Army veteran Alejandro Villanueva, went out on his own to stand at attention just outside the tunnel leading to and from the field.
I may not like when players, or anyone else, doesn't stand for the National Anthem, but it's their right to do so. Years ago, in a series of rulings in the 1940s-1950s, the Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses did not have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in class rooms, since the church felt pledging allegiance to a flag violated Biblical teaching. Since the Supreme Court said one group can't be compelled to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, then why shouldn't another group not be compelled to stand for the national anthem? We say we believe in freedom of expression, the right to protest, and all that. Not standing is a pretty peaceful protest, very much in line with the peaceful approach of a Dr. Martin Luther King as opposed to what we've seen happen in St. Louis recently, for one example.
However, at the same time, if you don't like paying out big bucks to watch a sporting event only to see the people you have paid to watch and cheer for conduct themselves in ways you find offensive, then you - the people - have the right to stop buying tickets, stop watching the games on TV, stop participating in promoting the game - in this case, the NFL.
You've heard the expression, "We get what we deserve?" Maybe it's better to say "We get what we are willing to tolerate."
In this case, the NFL is a business. If the stadiums are empty and no one is watching, the NFL will take notice (just as any business would). Forbes Magazine reported that:
"During the past month the overall stock market is up more than 2% but shares of companies that broadcast NFL games–Comcast,
Walt Disney, Fox, CBS–are all down between 1% to 8%.
The NFL is now a hotbed of protests–a carry over from last year that began when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick
began protesting during the National Anthem, to protests this year by those who feel Kaepernick, who is without a team, is being
unfairly treated by the league, to a stronger push by some players for an increase in NFL social activism.
Towards the end of last season some felt the NFL’s ratings dip would be temporary and therefore would not ultimately hurt the
networks by forcing them to reimburse advertisers. Instead, the opposite has happened.
Ratings for the NFL have been worse this season and attendance for some games has also been disappointing. The networks will
pay over $5 billion this season to televise the NFL and were already facing unflattering margins on advertising profits. An article
in Variety reckons the drop in NFL ratings could trim the broadcaster’s earnings by $200 million. Disney’s ESPN, meanwhile, also
continues to get hammered ..."
A lot of people booed at stadiums Sunday during the protest. I have read where some people are suggesting the "booing'' was really just fans booing the other team, but I don't think so. I think a lot - if not a majority - of NFL fans did not come to see a political statement, but to see the team they follow and have financially invested in (through buying tickets, programs, merchandise, etc) compete and, hopefully, win.
I'm a fan of the Atlanta Falcons. I plan my Sunday's around watching the Falcons, if at all possible. And like many fans of any sports team, I can be a little hypocritical. I can turn off the Washington Redskins-Oakland Raiders game because I'm bothered by the protest, but I didn't turn off the Falcons' game. I'm a fan. I weigh what bothers me by what entertains me, and only when what bothers me outweighs what entertains me will I be inclined to really follow through.
When that happens - and, as the above article from Forbes points out, it is happening - the NFL will get the message.
Don't get me wrong. I support every person's right to protest. I also believe, however, that you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of your protest. I referenced Dr. King above; he and his movement was a perfect example of people willing to suffer the consequences of their protest and ultimately the public became so horrified at those consequences that the protesters won. That's in direct consequence to today's protestors, who seem to want to be able to protest but be protected from the consequences. Maybe that's why so many people are not moved by those protests. But that's another topic for another blog.
But it goes beyond just the NFL. The same is true of cars, of concerts, of clothes, of anything I spend my money on. I don't buy gas from Citgo because I know Citgo is owned by the government of Venezuela, and I can't support the dictatorship in place in that country. I have a few other companies I have, so far, refused to support - although so many companies are so diverse that I have no way of knowing what all the parent company owns.
The principle also goes into politics. "We the People" determine our leadership. We have the opportunity to get involved in elections and vote. Oh, I hear how "big money" and Russia and fake news and the Koch Brothers or Unions are the real power behind elections, but if you are smart enough to recognize those influences, why do you think other people aren't? (Oh, I know we get fooled, but that, too, is the responsibility of a democracy). One of the ironies of this last presidential election was that we kept hearing Democrats tell us we need to take "big money" out of the process, and yet the Trump campaign won while spending something like a third of what the Clinton campaign spent; we also heard how we wanted an "outsider" in Washington, and we got about as ultimate of an outsider as there could be in a man who had never run for any political office in his life or held any position in government.
So it's pretty simple. If enough of "we the people" get tired of what is going on, "we the people" can still force change. "We" decide what we'll watch, what we'll pay for, who will represent us in government.
Unfortunately, too many of us now feel as though we're powerless.
I think the Founders would be appalled.
That is one of the most sacred lines in our country's history; the famous three words that begin the preamble to the Constitution.
"We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union ..."
The hope was that the government of the United States would always be subject to the "will" of the people, who ultimately would decide who their leaders would be (as opposed to those leaders coming to power by right of birth, wealth, or military might, the three means which had historically been the basis for leadership throughout much of the world's history).
We were never meant to be a true democracy, for that would be unwieldy. Can you imagine having national referendums on every law suggested, on every bill that was introduced? Plus, a pure democracy opens up the tyranny of the majority; a mere 50 percent plus one could decide to implement a host of laws and rulings that are abusive to the minority of people. Therefore we have representative government, whereby we elect people to represent us in government. However, in theory at least, we still have the ability to recall the people who we feel no longer represent us the way we want to be represented, who enough of us feel may be taking us in a direction we don't like.
But "we the people" is not only an idea in government.
"We the people" also describes the free market, capitalism. While the United States is no longer the shining example of free market economy it once was (the USA ranks 12th in economic freedom, according to the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal), we're still to a large extent a market driven economy.
If people don't like where they live, they move.
If people don't like a product, they don't buy it.
If people don't like what they see, they don't watch.
(Let's be clear - you can't always move from an area you don't like; sometimes you're forced to buy a product you don't like because it's the only one offered or best available; sometimes you watch things you'd rather not watch because the choices are so limited. I get all that, but generally speaking ...)
This weekend, in response to statements made by the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, a majority of NFL players across the league joined what had been a relatively few of their peers and decided to not stand for the National Anthem. One team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, under the direction of their head coach Mike Tomlin, did not go out on the field for the national anthem in direct violation of league rules - although one player, West Point grad and decorated Army veteran Alejandro Villanueva, went out on his own to stand at attention just outside the tunnel leading to and from the field.
I may not like when players, or anyone else, doesn't stand for the National Anthem, but it's their right to do so. Years ago, in a series of rulings in the 1940s-1950s, the Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses did not have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in class rooms, since the church felt pledging allegiance to a flag violated Biblical teaching. Since the Supreme Court said one group can't be compelled to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, then why shouldn't another group not be compelled to stand for the national anthem? We say we believe in freedom of expression, the right to protest, and all that. Not standing is a pretty peaceful protest, very much in line with the peaceful approach of a Dr. Martin Luther King as opposed to what we've seen happen in St. Louis recently, for one example.
However, at the same time, if you don't like paying out big bucks to watch a sporting event only to see the people you have paid to watch and cheer for conduct themselves in ways you find offensive, then you - the people - have the right to stop buying tickets, stop watching the games on TV, stop participating in promoting the game - in this case, the NFL.
You've heard the expression, "We get what we deserve?" Maybe it's better to say "We get what we are willing to tolerate."
In this case, the NFL is a business. If the stadiums are empty and no one is watching, the NFL will take notice (just as any business would). Forbes Magazine reported that:
"During the past month the overall stock market is up more than 2% but shares of companies that broadcast NFL games–Comcast,
Walt Disney, Fox, CBS–are all down between 1% to 8%.
The NFL is now a hotbed of protests–a carry over from last year that began when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick
began protesting during the National Anthem, to protests this year by those who feel Kaepernick, who is without a team, is being
unfairly treated by the league, to a stronger push by some players for an increase in NFL social activism.
Towards the end of last season some felt the NFL’s ratings dip would be temporary and therefore would not ultimately hurt the
networks by forcing them to reimburse advertisers. Instead, the opposite has happened.
Ratings for the NFL have been worse this season and attendance for some games has also been disappointing. The networks will
pay over $5 billion this season to televise the NFL and were already facing unflattering margins on advertising profits. An article
in Variety reckons the drop in NFL ratings could trim the broadcaster’s earnings by $200 million. Disney’s ESPN, meanwhile, also
continues to get hammered ..."
A lot of people booed at stadiums Sunday during the protest. I have read where some people are suggesting the "booing'' was really just fans booing the other team, but I don't think so. I think a lot - if not a majority - of NFL fans did not come to see a political statement, but to see the team they follow and have financially invested in (through buying tickets, programs, merchandise, etc) compete and, hopefully, win.
I'm a fan of the Atlanta Falcons. I plan my Sunday's around watching the Falcons, if at all possible. And like many fans of any sports team, I can be a little hypocritical. I can turn off the Washington Redskins-Oakland Raiders game because I'm bothered by the protest, but I didn't turn off the Falcons' game. I'm a fan. I weigh what bothers me by what entertains me, and only when what bothers me outweighs what entertains me will I be inclined to really follow through.
When that happens - and, as the above article from Forbes points out, it is happening - the NFL will get the message.
Don't get me wrong. I support every person's right to protest. I also believe, however, that you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of your protest. I referenced Dr. King above; he and his movement was a perfect example of people willing to suffer the consequences of their protest and ultimately the public became so horrified at those consequences that the protesters won. That's in direct consequence to today's protestors, who seem to want to be able to protest but be protected from the consequences. Maybe that's why so many people are not moved by those protests. But that's another topic for another blog.
But it goes beyond just the NFL. The same is true of cars, of concerts, of clothes, of anything I spend my money on. I don't buy gas from Citgo because I know Citgo is owned by the government of Venezuela, and I can't support the dictatorship in place in that country. I have a few other companies I have, so far, refused to support - although so many companies are so diverse that I have no way of knowing what all the parent company owns.
The principle also goes into politics. "We the People" determine our leadership. We have the opportunity to get involved in elections and vote. Oh, I hear how "big money" and Russia and fake news and the Koch Brothers or Unions are the real power behind elections, but if you are smart enough to recognize those influences, why do you think other people aren't? (Oh, I know we get fooled, but that, too, is the responsibility of a democracy). One of the ironies of this last presidential election was that we kept hearing Democrats tell us we need to take "big money" out of the process, and yet the Trump campaign won while spending something like a third of what the Clinton campaign spent; we also heard how we wanted an "outsider" in Washington, and we got about as ultimate of an outsider as there could be in a man who had never run for any political office in his life or held any position in government.
So it's pretty simple. If enough of "we the people" get tired of what is going on, "we the people" can still force change. "We" decide what we'll watch, what we'll pay for, who will represent us in government.
Unfortunately, too many of us now feel as though we're powerless.
I think the Founders would be appalled.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
A little less talk and a lot more action
As a kid, I got in a few fights. Not many, and the ones I did get in were more wrestling matches (“wrasslin’’’) than punches thrown.
In high school, I had a brief three-bout run in the Boys’ Club Golden Gloves Program. After college, I stumbled into the early world of PKA Karate and for a couple of years competed routinely in tournaments around the Southeast.
Playing sports, I understood what it meant to get physically whipped. I can remember playing against guys that I knew were just better than I was; guys who I knew could hurt me – and probably wanted to.
There were fights in my high school. We called them “gang fights,’’ but we were pretty much suburban white kids, and the conflict was usually between the groups we referred to as the “socialites” and the “hoods.” Back in the day, we had shop classes in our high school, and I remember one episode where a fight was supposed to be staged in a lower parking lot, behind the building where the shop classes were held. That’s only important because in drafting class, we had something called “T-squares,’’ which came in handy in a fight involving multiple people because you could sometimes come up behind some unsuspecting combatant and hook them in various places, causing a lot of pain.
I’ve been hit with bare fists, padded fists, kicked, and even had a guy take a swing at me with a 2x4 one time (he missed, fortunately). I’ve swung from iron monkey bars and busted the back of my head; tried to climb a tree only to lose my grip and slide down, the bark pulling up my shirt and turning my stomach and chest into bloody rivulets; gone head-over-the handle bars of my bike when I was not wearing a helmet (I didn't own one or know anyone who did); ridden a skateboard downhill on asphalt with no knee pads or helmet (again, because we didn't have any) and, unable to stop, turned into the curb, throwing me head-first into prickly bushes; once went diving into a pile of leaves, unaware that the leaves were piled around a fire plug … in other words, done a lot of stupid stuff that kids of my generation did. We played “Army,’’ and one day decided since we couldn’t figure out how to determine who had actually been shot used B-B guns, because that would leave a mark (boy, did it; fortunately, that was a one-time thing and no one lost an eye).
All of that is not to suggest that I’m a fighter (I’m definitely not), or I’m tough (again, I’m not), and surely it won’t be read as if I’m bragging (there was nothing worth bragging about).
The point is that, like a lot of people of my generation and certainly those generations older than me, we grew up understanding the threat of physical violence, of getting hurt. Not to the level of some places and some people. The point is, I knew I could get hit, it would hurt, but I’d be OK; I learned it was better to not get hit if possible; I figured out that verbal insults were much preferred over having a guy swing a 2x4 at your head with the intent to do bodily harm; and whenever a buddy had what seemed like a ‘great idea,’ let him try it first (Famous last words: “Hey ya’ll, watch this!”).
Apparently, understanding both the threat of physical violence, and the knowledge of how to engage in physical confrontation, is being lost.
This is what social scientists are calling the “iGen,’’ meaning this generation that has grown up in an era of small families, protective parents, padded playgrounds, knee pads and helmets, “nerf” balls and bats, and, of course, computer simulated games rather than getting out and actually driving a go-kart over a homemade course laid out through streets and woods, complete with ramps and jumps and hair-pin turns and wipe-outs.
According to an article I was reading, these kids grew up being told safety was a priority. A study done by Dr. Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego State University, reports fewer kids today (as compared to those from the early 2000s) liked to take risks or got a thrill out of doing something dangerous. The number was something close to double that of the previous survey/study that say they don't get a thrill out of taking a chance.
The good news, according to Dr. Twenge, is that fewer kids today get into automobile accidents, fistfights, engage in binge-drinking, or “sneak out” to do things they know their parents (or authority figure) would not approve.
So with physical safety apparently taken care of, what’s left?
Emotional safety. Words that hurt. Verbal altercations that cause one to become anxious or feeling unsettled.
As a 19-year-old told Dr. Twenge (who wrote a book called “iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy – and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood”), “I believe nobody can guarantee emotional safety. You can always take precautions for someone hurting you physically, but you cannot really help but listen when someone is talking to you.”
When I was in college, we loved hearing “radical” speakers, who we disagreed with, that we could argue with and test our fledgling ability to make an argument and prove a point.
Today, if you read the headlines, you see where college kids want nothing to do with hearing from people who might upset them. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, campus “disinvites” have risen steadily, “reaching an all-time high of 42 in 2016, up from just six in 2000.” In a survey of freshmen college students in 2015, 43 percent agreed that campuses should be able to ban speakers who might have “extreme or unsettling ideas."
And when controversy does come up, students want a ‘safe space’ where they can go if they feel upset, to calm down with coloring books or some similar "comfort" activity from their childhood. This is a generation that grew up with the "reset" button - that button on the side of the game console where, if you found yourself behind by too much, you could hit 'reset' and the game started over. You didn't lose. You just got to start again.
While older generations of college students thought college administrators were out of touch and clueless, and the less we had to do with them the better, today’s students want – no, expect – the college administration to settle disputes, create a “safe” environment because, as one student said, “It is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students … It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! It is about creating a home here!”
Get that? They expect adults to take care of them.
They are in college to be prepared to make money (and avoid being on the wrong-end of that dreaded “income inequality”), and don’t want to be disturbed with challenging thoughts and new ideas.
And so we find this generation heading straight into George Orwell’s “1984,” where they actually want “Big Brother” watching over them, monitoring their words (social media?), conforming everyone to the same “group-think,” not trusting their peers to govern them and certainly not believing that the great masses are capable of appropriate government.
“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness,’’ Orwell wrote. “And for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
Is “1984” even required reading anymore? Or “Animal Farm?”
When I first read those books, I understood Animal Farm to be an indictment of Communism, or the Soviet Union’s version of Communism, anyway. But as for 1984 – I couldn’t imagine a time like that described by Orwell (writing back in the late 1940s).
Who would want to be watched that closely? Well, that was before YouTube and twitter.
Who would want to have their words not only parsed but then broadcast world wide for everyone - including strangers - to read? That was before facebook.
So now I fear I'm seeing 1984 come true, not by force of some totalitarian government but by the willingness of the people (the 'proles'?), from kids who want protection over taking risks, emotional security over maturity, and who are more comfortable dealing with the programmed artificial intelligence on a hand-held device than the unpredictable, often irrational, frequently upsetting views of their fellow human beings.
Maybe what they all need is just an old-fashioned fist-fight, to understand you can hurt people physically and be hurt, and survive. And learn that hearing unpleasant words hurts a lot less than getting whacked in the gut with a stick.
Heck, they might even get up from the grappling with a new appreciation for the other person; maybe even become "friends." (Even, as I heard one young athlete once say about another athlete from a different team, "We're friends that don't like each other very much.")
I'm not advocating that we all go start a brawl, like a bunch of Irishmen in a pub (think the ending of "The Quiet Man'). But I am saying maybe we need to put the coloring books aside and have a little old fashioned, unpredictable, unsafe, even dangerous human interaction.
Heck, some of us think that's kind of what makes life fun.
In high school, I had a brief three-bout run in the Boys’ Club Golden Gloves Program. After college, I stumbled into the early world of PKA Karate and for a couple of years competed routinely in tournaments around the Southeast.
Playing sports, I understood what it meant to get physically whipped. I can remember playing against guys that I knew were just better than I was; guys who I knew could hurt me – and probably wanted to.
There were fights in my high school. We called them “gang fights,’’ but we were pretty much suburban white kids, and the conflict was usually between the groups we referred to as the “socialites” and the “hoods.” Back in the day, we had shop classes in our high school, and I remember one episode where a fight was supposed to be staged in a lower parking lot, behind the building where the shop classes were held. That’s only important because in drafting class, we had something called “T-squares,’’ which came in handy in a fight involving multiple people because you could sometimes come up behind some unsuspecting combatant and hook them in various places, causing a lot of pain.
I’ve been hit with bare fists, padded fists, kicked, and even had a guy take a swing at me with a 2x4 one time (he missed, fortunately). I’ve swung from iron monkey bars and busted the back of my head; tried to climb a tree only to lose my grip and slide down, the bark pulling up my shirt and turning my stomach and chest into bloody rivulets; gone head-over-the handle bars of my bike when I was not wearing a helmet (I didn't own one or know anyone who did); ridden a skateboard downhill on asphalt with no knee pads or helmet (again, because we didn't have any) and, unable to stop, turned into the curb, throwing me head-first into prickly bushes; once went diving into a pile of leaves, unaware that the leaves were piled around a fire plug … in other words, done a lot of stupid stuff that kids of my generation did. We played “Army,’’ and one day decided since we couldn’t figure out how to determine who had actually been shot used B-B guns, because that would leave a mark (boy, did it; fortunately, that was a one-time thing and no one lost an eye).
All of that is not to suggest that I’m a fighter (I’m definitely not), or I’m tough (again, I’m not), and surely it won’t be read as if I’m bragging (there was nothing worth bragging about).
The point is that, like a lot of people of my generation and certainly those generations older than me, we grew up understanding the threat of physical violence, of getting hurt. Not to the level of some places and some people. The point is, I knew I could get hit, it would hurt, but I’d be OK; I learned it was better to not get hit if possible; I figured out that verbal insults were much preferred over having a guy swing a 2x4 at your head with the intent to do bodily harm; and whenever a buddy had what seemed like a ‘great idea,’ let him try it first (Famous last words: “Hey ya’ll, watch this!”).
Apparently, understanding both the threat of physical violence, and the knowledge of how to engage in physical confrontation, is being lost.
This is what social scientists are calling the “iGen,’’ meaning this generation that has grown up in an era of small families, protective parents, padded playgrounds, knee pads and helmets, “nerf” balls and bats, and, of course, computer simulated games rather than getting out and actually driving a go-kart over a homemade course laid out through streets and woods, complete with ramps and jumps and hair-pin turns and wipe-outs.
According to an article I was reading, these kids grew up being told safety was a priority. A study done by Dr. Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego State University, reports fewer kids today (as compared to those from the early 2000s) liked to take risks or got a thrill out of doing something dangerous. The number was something close to double that of the previous survey/study that say they don't get a thrill out of taking a chance.
The good news, according to Dr. Twenge, is that fewer kids today get into automobile accidents, fistfights, engage in binge-drinking, or “sneak out” to do things they know their parents (or authority figure) would not approve.
So with physical safety apparently taken care of, what’s left?
Emotional safety. Words that hurt. Verbal altercations that cause one to become anxious or feeling unsettled.
As a 19-year-old told Dr. Twenge (who wrote a book called “iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy – and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood”), “I believe nobody can guarantee emotional safety. You can always take precautions for someone hurting you physically, but you cannot really help but listen when someone is talking to you.”
When I was in college, we loved hearing “radical” speakers, who we disagreed with, that we could argue with and test our fledgling ability to make an argument and prove a point.
Today, if you read the headlines, you see where college kids want nothing to do with hearing from people who might upset them. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, campus “disinvites” have risen steadily, “reaching an all-time high of 42 in 2016, up from just six in 2000.” In a survey of freshmen college students in 2015, 43 percent agreed that campuses should be able to ban speakers who might have “extreme or unsettling ideas."
And when controversy does come up, students want a ‘safe space’ where they can go if they feel upset, to calm down with coloring books or some similar "comfort" activity from their childhood. This is a generation that grew up with the "reset" button - that button on the side of the game console where, if you found yourself behind by too much, you could hit 'reset' and the game started over. You didn't lose. You just got to start again.
While older generations of college students thought college administrators were out of touch and clueless, and the less we had to do with them the better, today’s students want – no, expect – the college administration to settle disputes, create a “safe” environment because, as one student said, “It is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students … It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! It is about creating a home here!”
Get that? They expect adults to take care of them.
They are in college to be prepared to make money (and avoid being on the wrong-end of that dreaded “income inequality”), and don’t want to be disturbed with challenging thoughts and new ideas.
And so we find this generation heading straight into George Orwell’s “1984,” where they actually want “Big Brother” watching over them, monitoring their words (social media?), conforming everyone to the same “group-think,” not trusting their peers to govern them and certainly not believing that the great masses are capable of appropriate government.
“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness,’’ Orwell wrote. “And for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
Is “1984” even required reading anymore? Or “Animal Farm?”
When I first read those books, I understood Animal Farm to be an indictment of Communism, or the Soviet Union’s version of Communism, anyway. But as for 1984 – I couldn’t imagine a time like that described by Orwell (writing back in the late 1940s).
Who would want to be watched that closely? Well, that was before YouTube and twitter.
Who would want to have their words not only parsed but then broadcast world wide for everyone - including strangers - to read? That was before facebook.
So now I fear I'm seeing 1984 come true, not by force of some totalitarian government but by the willingness of the people (the 'proles'?), from kids who want protection over taking risks, emotional security over maturity, and who are more comfortable dealing with the programmed artificial intelligence on a hand-held device than the unpredictable, often irrational, frequently upsetting views of their fellow human beings.
Maybe what they all need is just an old-fashioned fist-fight, to understand you can hurt people physically and be hurt, and survive. And learn that hearing unpleasant words hurts a lot less than getting whacked in the gut with a stick.
Heck, they might even get up from the grappling with a new appreciation for the other person; maybe even become "friends." (Even, as I heard one young athlete once say about another athlete from a different team, "We're friends that don't like each other very much.")
I'm not advocating that we all go start a brawl, like a bunch of Irishmen in a pub (think the ending of "The Quiet Man'). But I am saying maybe we need to put the coloring books aside and have a little old fashioned, unpredictable, unsafe, even dangerous human interaction.
Heck, some of us think that's kind of what makes life fun.
Monday, September 11, 2017
Sept 11: where does your hope lie?
It's September 11.
For years, September 11 had only one meaning for me: it was my father's birthday. He was a member of that "Greatest Generation,'' that grew up through the Great Depression and went off to free the world from Fascists and Nazis in that little event called "World War II."
Like you, I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news about the planes flying into the Twin Towers in New York.
I was dropping my kids off at school. We were probably listening to music on the way to school, because the first I heard about the attack was after I let them out. I immediately turned the radio to WJOX, our local sports talk station where I co-hosted an afternoon drive-time show. I remember that Matt Coulter and Scott Griffin where hosting the morning show, and the first thing I heard was Scott Griffin say something like, "The only thing I can compare this to is the Oklahoma City bombing." And I remember thinking, "Scott, you've gone way too far. I have no idea what the issue is, but there is nothing in sports that you can compare to Oklahoma City." I remember thinking, Scott is going to get hammered for that comparison.
It was several moments before I understood something very much like Oklahoma City had happened - even worse - and Scott was absolutely correct.
I got home to find my father standing, watching the television in our living room. My Dad lived with me from the time my mother passed away until he joined her. I went and stood next to him as we watched the live shots of the towers that, I don't believe, had collapsed yet. And we stood there, mesmerized and horrified. I remember thinking, "This must be what the country felt like hearing the news of Pearl Harbor."
Both of my parents were World War II veterans. My father was in the Coast Guard, which was drawn into the Navy when the war broke out. My mom was disowned by her father for joining the "WAVES" - Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service, which was the World War II women's branch of the United States Naval Reserve. My mom grew up on a farm in rural Georgia, and her father didn't think it was appropriate for a woman to be in the military. He was already unhappy that she'd left the farm to go work in the "big city" of Atlanta, and in his eyes this was apparently one more act of rebellion.
They met while both were stationed in Charleston, S.C. The way I remember the story, they met and married within two weeks (one of my siblings said they didn't think that was true, but it's the way I remember the story), and stayed married for the rest of their lives. My mother got pregnant in the first year of their marriage and had to leave the Navy. Sometime later she got a letter from her father, telling her how proud he was of her for going off to serve her country. You can imagine what that letter did for my mom.
It's been 16 years since that event we call "9-11." Who would have known that, 16 years later, we'd still be fighting that war on terror? Who would have known that our enemies would have changed into this group of radical Islamic terrorists, representing no traditional country or government, but rather existing through the support of a network that has kept them going through different organizational names? It was so much easier to fight a "country" with traditional territorial boundaries and a defined Army. The world has changed; this country has changed. America is now the target of choice for those who hold to grievances and hate what they define as the "American way of life."
Particularly now, in this divided country that we're uncomfortable living in but can't seem to figure out how to unite. Oh, we were united for a time after Sept. 11. We were proud to fly the flag, wave the colors, greet each other like long-lost cousins, applaud members of military, law enforcement, first responders. However, as that initial wave of unity crested and began to roll back out, we seem to drift apart faster than ever. Every issue is turned into a politically divisive issue by media on both sides (and there are sides to the media), and when a politician tries to "reach out" in a spirit of cooperation and perhaps even compromise, he often finds his attempts rejected and his motives villainized by the Left and the Right. The presence of such radical disunity after recognition of the increased terror threat in this country is disturbing, to say the least.
I think we'll all know if we lose this war. The problem is, I don't think we have any real idea of how to determine victory.
But here was one lesson, perhaps the greatest lesson, I learned from Sept. 11, 2001.
As I stood there, next to my father, watching what was going on in New York City and, later, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. and that horrific but heroic action resulting in the crash of United Flight 93 in that field in Pennsylvania, I remember thinking, "I'm glad I live in Birmingham, Al. That would never happen here."
I'm not a believer in voices, but I would almost swear I heard a voice in my head say to me, "So! Your faith is in where you live, not in God!"
That was a sobering moment for me. Maybe it seems silly to you. But it's amazing how often little things, "silly" things, seemingly inconsequential things have had the greatest impact in my life.
But that moment it hit me what it means to trust God.
Was I trusting God AND my geographic location? Was I trusting God AND my nationality? Was I trusting God AND my occupation/income (such as it was)? Was I trusting God AND ... anything?
If there was an "AND" after my trusting God, then I wasn't really trusting God Alone, was I?
And that was wrong.
My brother the theologian tells the story of being in seminary, playing basketball late one night in the school gym. An old janitor came in to close up the gym, but decided to let the students finish the game. While they played, he sat in the stands, reading his Bible.
After they finished, the seminary students came over to thank the man for allowing them to finish, and asked what he was reading.
"The Book of Revelation," the man said.
"Revelation?" one of the students responded. "Do you understand it, with all the symbolism and dragons and strange creatures and illusions?"
"Yes,'' the old man said.
"Well, then, tell us what it means."
The old man said simply, "It means that in the end, Jesus wins."
That, I have to constantly remind myself, is where my nope lies. Not in where I live, where I work, my family, my nationality, my race.
My hope is built on "nothing less, than Jesus' blood and righteousness."
For years, September 11 had only one meaning for me: it was my father's birthday. He was a member of that "Greatest Generation,'' that grew up through the Great Depression and went off to free the world from Fascists and Nazis in that little event called "World War II."
Like you, I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news about the planes flying into the Twin Towers in New York.
I was dropping my kids off at school. We were probably listening to music on the way to school, because the first I heard about the attack was after I let them out. I immediately turned the radio to WJOX, our local sports talk station where I co-hosted an afternoon drive-time show. I remember that Matt Coulter and Scott Griffin where hosting the morning show, and the first thing I heard was Scott Griffin say something like, "The only thing I can compare this to is the Oklahoma City bombing." And I remember thinking, "Scott, you've gone way too far. I have no idea what the issue is, but there is nothing in sports that you can compare to Oklahoma City." I remember thinking, Scott is going to get hammered for that comparison.
It was several moments before I understood something very much like Oklahoma City had happened - even worse - and Scott was absolutely correct.
I got home to find my father standing, watching the television in our living room. My Dad lived with me from the time my mother passed away until he joined her. I went and stood next to him as we watched the live shots of the towers that, I don't believe, had collapsed yet. And we stood there, mesmerized and horrified. I remember thinking, "This must be what the country felt like hearing the news of Pearl Harbor."
Both of my parents were World War II veterans. My father was in the Coast Guard, which was drawn into the Navy when the war broke out. My mom was disowned by her father for joining the "WAVES" - Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service, which was the World War II women's branch of the United States Naval Reserve. My mom grew up on a farm in rural Georgia, and her father didn't think it was appropriate for a woman to be in the military. He was already unhappy that she'd left the farm to go work in the "big city" of Atlanta, and in his eyes this was apparently one more act of rebellion.
They met while both were stationed in Charleston, S.C. The way I remember the story, they met and married within two weeks (one of my siblings said they didn't think that was true, but it's the way I remember the story), and stayed married for the rest of their lives. My mother got pregnant in the first year of their marriage and had to leave the Navy. Sometime later she got a letter from her father, telling her how proud he was of her for going off to serve her country. You can imagine what that letter did for my mom.
It's been 16 years since that event we call "9-11." Who would have known that, 16 years later, we'd still be fighting that war on terror? Who would have known that our enemies would have changed into this group of radical Islamic terrorists, representing no traditional country or government, but rather existing through the support of a network that has kept them going through different organizational names? It was so much easier to fight a "country" with traditional territorial boundaries and a defined Army. The world has changed; this country has changed. America is now the target of choice for those who hold to grievances and hate what they define as the "American way of life."
Particularly now, in this divided country that we're uncomfortable living in but can't seem to figure out how to unite. Oh, we were united for a time after Sept. 11. We were proud to fly the flag, wave the colors, greet each other like long-lost cousins, applaud members of military, law enforcement, first responders. However, as that initial wave of unity crested and began to roll back out, we seem to drift apart faster than ever. Every issue is turned into a politically divisive issue by media on both sides (and there are sides to the media), and when a politician tries to "reach out" in a spirit of cooperation and perhaps even compromise, he often finds his attempts rejected and his motives villainized by the Left and the Right. The presence of such radical disunity after recognition of the increased terror threat in this country is disturbing, to say the least.
I think we'll all know if we lose this war. The problem is, I don't think we have any real idea of how to determine victory.
But here was one lesson, perhaps the greatest lesson, I learned from Sept. 11, 2001.
As I stood there, next to my father, watching what was going on in New York City and, later, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. and that horrific but heroic action resulting in the crash of United Flight 93 in that field in Pennsylvania, I remember thinking, "I'm glad I live in Birmingham, Al. That would never happen here."
I'm not a believer in voices, but I would almost swear I heard a voice in my head say to me, "So! Your faith is in where you live, not in God!"
That was a sobering moment for me. Maybe it seems silly to you. But it's amazing how often little things, "silly" things, seemingly inconsequential things have had the greatest impact in my life.
But that moment it hit me what it means to trust God.
Was I trusting God AND my geographic location? Was I trusting God AND my nationality? Was I trusting God AND my occupation/income (such as it was)? Was I trusting God AND ... anything?
If there was an "AND" after my trusting God, then I wasn't really trusting God Alone, was I?
And that was wrong.
My brother the theologian tells the story of being in seminary, playing basketball late one night in the school gym. An old janitor came in to close up the gym, but decided to let the students finish the game. While they played, he sat in the stands, reading his Bible.
After they finished, the seminary students came over to thank the man for allowing them to finish, and asked what he was reading.
"The Book of Revelation," the man said.
"Revelation?" one of the students responded. "Do you understand it, with all the symbolism and dragons and strange creatures and illusions?"
"Yes,'' the old man said.
"Well, then, tell us what it means."
The old man said simply, "It means that in the end, Jesus wins."
That, I have to constantly remind myself, is where my nope lies. Not in where I live, where I work, my family, my nationality, my race.
My hope is built on "nothing less, than Jesus' blood and righteousness."
Thursday, September 7, 2017
Free will, predestination, and the biology of sin
Some time ago, I ordered a book that my oldest brother told me about.
Called “The Biology of Sin,” it is a book written by Dr. Mathew Stanford, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor University. In it, Dr. Stanford discusses sinful behaviors – adultery, rage, addiction, and homosexuality – asking, What does science say, and what does the Bible say about this behavior? He then goes on in an attempt to reconcile the fact that biological predispositions play a role in behavior which the Bible calls sinful.
It is an interesting discussion, whether there might be biological predisposition for sinful behavior. I’m always reminded of the story of former Ohio State and NFL quarterback Art Schlichter, who literally gambled away his football career because of his compulsive gambling streak, a problem that led to his being sentenced to federal prison for stealing thousands of dollars to keep gambling.
At some point in his story, Schlichter was diagnosed as having an addiction, and gave a tearful interview in which he said something to the effect of, “I’m so thankful to learn it’s a sickness. I thought I was just a loser!”
In our efforts to study human behavior, we have come across all kinds of biological and genetic predisposition that helps us understand our behavior. Alcoholism, gambling, sex, lying, stealing … recently, I met with someone involved in genetic research going on at the UAB Medical Center in Birmingham who told me they think that many people who suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) may be genetically predisposed to PTSD.
In that meeting, I jokingly said, “maybe we’re about to determine the answer to the theological question of free will vs. predestination.”
And then a few days later, I picked up a weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal and found a column titled, “Does Belief in Free Will Make Us More Ethical? A new paper on the surprising effect of social and political context” https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-belief-in-free-will-make-us-more-ethical-1504192905
The piece refers to a study from 2016, in which participants were given readings informing them that recent advances in neuroscience “cast doubt on the concept of free will.” Upon reading this information, these people tended to become more dishonest in certain situations.
Even more, it was determined that “how much we believe in free will also influences our judgments about how others behave: The more that people believe humans can choose what they do, the more they advocate harsh punishment for criminals.”
It’s a fascinating study that seems to bear out the idea that we will hold ourselves and others to higher standards of behavior if we honestly believe we have a choice, but if we believe we’re “wired” a certain way, we’re more likely to accept our own behavior that we might formerly have called “bad” as inevitable. As the old 1960s comedian Flip Wilson famously said, “The devil made me do it.” Only in this case, the ‘devil’ is our genetic code.
There are heated discussions every day about the conflict between science and faith, and the core is over what causes our sinful behavior, and what does “sin” look like if there are biological predispositions that “explain” our sin.
On the one hand, it is fascinating. Like Art Schlichter, who wouldn’t want to feel that I’m not blame for my bad habits that I can’t seem to break, because I’m “born this way” (to quote that noted thinker Lady Gaga)! You can’t really hold me accountable for my genetic code since I had nothing to do with it. If I lie, steal, cheat, engage in culturally unacceptable sexual behavior (if there is such a thing anymore), and it turns out my biology says I’m predisposed to such behavior, am I really to blame?
On the other hand, I believe sin nature is real. From the beginning – from the Garden of Eden, if you will – man’s genetic code and DNA has been gradually devolving, as disruptions and imperfect genes are introduced, mixed, broken down, etc., like royal families who constantly inbred.
But my predisposition to sin, particularly my predisposition to a particular sin, is not an excuse to continue in that sin. If anything, it’s just that much of a greater challenge to me to be aware of that predisposition, stay on guard, and avoid the temptation.
Is it fair? By that I mean, how can it be fair that my wife, for example, seems to be incapable of telling a lie – in fact, would never think of telling a lie even when perhaps a “little white lie” might seem preferable – while it seems my first reaction to any uncomfortable situation seems to be figuring out a way to say something to avoid the unpleasantness (in other words, lying)? She doesn’t understand my struggle, and in fact may look down on those of us who struggle with the truth because to her it doesn’t make any sense not to tell the truth, knowing life is much simpler and less complicated if we just tell the truth and address uncomfortable situations head-on. But if I’m predisposed to avoiding the truth, then what right does she have to be judgmental since she can’t possibly understand the internal struggle that may be part of my genetic and biological make-up?
No, it’s not fair. But as Scar, the brother who wanted to be king in the movie “The Lion King,’’ so eloquently said, “Life’s not fair. If it were, I would be king!”
If you believe in biology and genetics, then perhaps we shouldn’t judge Scar too harshly for arranging the death of his brother and the exile of his nephew in order for Scar to becoming king.
I’m serious, sort of.
I still believe in free will. I still believe that we have the ability, despite our genetic or biological or scientific predispositions, to just say “no.” It’s tougher for some of us in certain situations, and we need to understand that and be sympathetic about that. I honestly don’t know what you struggle with, any more than you understand my struggles. But I do know we both have struggles. We are, after all, human. And when sin entered the world, so did our struggle to do the “right” thing.
If anything, perhaps this science of predisposition simply reinforces our basic Christian tenant of looking at the log in our own eye before we start on the speck in the eye of our brother (Matthew 7:3-5). That doesn’t mean we ignore the speck in our brothers’ eye – that verse does end with the instructions to “First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.” (Emphasis added).
We still have to deal with each other’s problems. But first, let’s be honest about our own and seek whatever help we need to deal with those as well.
There is a difference between ignoring something and compassion. It’s not compassion to ignore behavior in someone else that may lead to their injury or destruction.
Called “The Biology of Sin,” it is a book written by Dr. Mathew Stanford, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor University. In it, Dr. Stanford discusses sinful behaviors – adultery, rage, addiction, and homosexuality – asking, What does science say, and what does the Bible say about this behavior? He then goes on in an attempt to reconcile the fact that biological predispositions play a role in behavior which the Bible calls sinful.
It is an interesting discussion, whether there might be biological predisposition for sinful behavior. I’m always reminded of the story of former Ohio State and NFL quarterback Art Schlichter, who literally gambled away his football career because of his compulsive gambling streak, a problem that led to his being sentenced to federal prison for stealing thousands of dollars to keep gambling.
At some point in his story, Schlichter was diagnosed as having an addiction, and gave a tearful interview in which he said something to the effect of, “I’m so thankful to learn it’s a sickness. I thought I was just a loser!”
In our efforts to study human behavior, we have come across all kinds of biological and genetic predisposition that helps us understand our behavior. Alcoholism, gambling, sex, lying, stealing … recently, I met with someone involved in genetic research going on at the UAB Medical Center in Birmingham who told me they think that many people who suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) may be genetically predisposed to PTSD.
In that meeting, I jokingly said, “maybe we’re about to determine the answer to the theological question of free will vs. predestination.”
And then a few days later, I picked up a weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal and found a column titled, “Does Belief in Free Will Make Us More Ethical? A new paper on the surprising effect of social and political context” https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-belief-in-free-will-make-us-more-ethical-1504192905
The piece refers to a study from 2016, in which participants were given readings informing them that recent advances in neuroscience “cast doubt on the concept of free will.” Upon reading this information, these people tended to become more dishonest in certain situations.
Even more, it was determined that “how much we believe in free will also influences our judgments about how others behave: The more that people believe humans can choose what they do, the more they advocate harsh punishment for criminals.”
It’s a fascinating study that seems to bear out the idea that we will hold ourselves and others to higher standards of behavior if we honestly believe we have a choice, but if we believe we’re “wired” a certain way, we’re more likely to accept our own behavior that we might formerly have called “bad” as inevitable. As the old 1960s comedian Flip Wilson famously said, “The devil made me do it.” Only in this case, the ‘devil’ is our genetic code.
There are heated discussions every day about the conflict between science and faith, and the core is over what causes our sinful behavior, and what does “sin” look like if there are biological predispositions that “explain” our sin.
On the one hand, it is fascinating. Like Art Schlichter, who wouldn’t want to feel that I’m not blame for my bad habits that I can’t seem to break, because I’m “born this way” (to quote that noted thinker Lady Gaga)! You can’t really hold me accountable for my genetic code since I had nothing to do with it. If I lie, steal, cheat, engage in culturally unacceptable sexual behavior (if there is such a thing anymore), and it turns out my biology says I’m predisposed to such behavior, am I really to blame?
On the other hand, I believe sin nature is real. From the beginning – from the Garden of Eden, if you will – man’s genetic code and DNA has been gradually devolving, as disruptions and imperfect genes are introduced, mixed, broken down, etc., like royal families who constantly inbred.
But my predisposition to sin, particularly my predisposition to a particular sin, is not an excuse to continue in that sin. If anything, it’s just that much of a greater challenge to me to be aware of that predisposition, stay on guard, and avoid the temptation.
Is it fair? By that I mean, how can it be fair that my wife, for example, seems to be incapable of telling a lie – in fact, would never think of telling a lie even when perhaps a “little white lie” might seem preferable – while it seems my first reaction to any uncomfortable situation seems to be figuring out a way to say something to avoid the unpleasantness (in other words, lying)? She doesn’t understand my struggle, and in fact may look down on those of us who struggle with the truth because to her it doesn’t make any sense not to tell the truth, knowing life is much simpler and less complicated if we just tell the truth and address uncomfortable situations head-on. But if I’m predisposed to avoiding the truth, then what right does she have to be judgmental since she can’t possibly understand the internal struggle that may be part of my genetic and biological make-up?
No, it’s not fair. But as Scar, the brother who wanted to be king in the movie “The Lion King,’’ so eloquently said, “Life’s not fair. If it were, I would be king!”
If you believe in biology and genetics, then perhaps we shouldn’t judge Scar too harshly for arranging the death of his brother and the exile of his nephew in order for Scar to becoming king.
I’m serious, sort of.
I still believe in free will. I still believe that we have the ability, despite our genetic or biological or scientific predispositions, to just say “no.” It’s tougher for some of us in certain situations, and we need to understand that and be sympathetic about that. I honestly don’t know what you struggle with, any more than you understand my struggles. But I do know we both have struggles. We are, after all, human. And when sin entered the world, so did our struggle to do the “right” thing.
If anything, perhaps this science of predisposition simply reinforces our basic Christian tenant of looking at the log in our own eye before we start on the speck in the eye of our brother (Matthew 7:3-5). That doesn’t mean we ignore the speck in our brothers’ eye – that verse does end with the instructions to “First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.” (Emphasis added).
We still have to deal with each other’s problems. But first, let’s be honest about our own and seek whatever help we need to deal with those as well.
There is a difference between ignoring something and compassion. It’s not compassion to ignore behavior in someone else that may lead to their injury or destruction.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Oswald Chambers and the "Nashville Statement"
If you are not aware of the controversy surrounding the “Nashville Statement,’’ don’t worry. It’s really a theological statement meant to “clarify Christian convictions in a world of changing sexual ethics.” It really wasn't meant for mass consumption.
But if you were raised in a traditional Christian church, there is nothing surprising in the document. It affirms that marriage is a lifelong union of one man and one woman; sex and sexual immorality outside of marriage – whether hetero or homosexual – are not justified; same-sex attraction is not part of God’s original creation; and, in what may be a shocker to those folks who feel Christians are science-deniers, it says you can’t nullify science - your biology - for psychological reasons or desires.
One of the signers, preacher and teacher John Piper, said in an article about it that “In recent years, the celebration of attempts to transform oneself from male to female, or female to male, and the normalization of same-sex attraction, including so-called “same-sex marriage,” have reconfigured the global landscape of sexual ethics. ...
"It is built on the persuasion that the Christian Scriptures speak with clarity and authority for the good of humankind. It is permeated by the awareness that we are all sinners in need of divine grace through Jesus Christ. It affirms with joy that no form of sexual sin is beyond forgiveness and healing. It touches the most fundamental and urgent questions of the hour, without presuming to be a blueprint for political action. And it will prove to be, I believe, enormously helpful for thousands of pastors and leaders hoping to give wise, biblical, and gracious guidance to their people. ...”
There is, as you can imagine, quite a bit of backlash against the Nashville Statement. One article I read called it “deadly theology.” Many said things like, “This doesn’t reflect the Jesus I know.” The mayor of the city of Nashville said “so-called "Nashville Statement" is poorly named and does not represent the inclusive values of the city & people of Nashville.” (The document is called the “Nashville Statement” because that is the city where the final version was agreed upon; Nashville has long been the unofficial center of Southern Baptist theology, as the home to the Southern Baptist Convention)
There really isn’t anything new in the statement. It is simply the restating of what has been the traditional view of the Christian faith for roughly 2,000 years. My favorite response, however, was from a Jewish writer named Ben Shapiro, who said, “Did I miss the part of the Nashville Statement where any serious Christian doctrine changed in the slightest?"
Because my family tends to discuss these kind of theological issues, it was an interesting topic of conversation for us, particularly with my youngest son.
The day he and I were engaging in this back-and-forth was September 1. That will be significant in a minute.
I keep a copy of a devotional called “My Utmost For His Highest” by Oswald Chambers. It’s a phenominal devotional that I first discovered while still in high school. It has a devotion for every day of the year, the collected thoughts from a series of talks given by Mr. Chambers in the early 1900s, something like 1911 through 1915 (he died in 1917, I believe).
I have read through this book several times in my life, but it had not been on my reading list recently. However, I came across it while looking for something to read, and I picked it up and turned to that day's date: Sept. 1.
In this particular devotional, Chambers writes “… if through your preaching you convince me I am unholy, I then resent your preaching. The preaching of the gospel awakens an intense resentment because it is designed to reveal my unholiness …”
God’s purpose for man is not our happiness, but our holiness; to make us resemble more closely the character of God through his Son, Jesus. So when we hear things that make us unhappy, or uncomfortable with the way we’re living, it can make us angry or even resentful. I don’t want to stop doing the things I like to do, but because of the “fall” I find that I like doing things that God did not design me to do.
And I think that’s what the Nashville Statement did for some people. In a culture where we’re desperate to convince ourselves and others that God approves of our lives no matter how we’re living, to have someone remind us that the way we’re living may not be in line with God’s will is disturbing. I don’t like to be corrected. I don’t like the suggestion that I may be wrong. I certainly don’t like being told I need to change.
But that is the heart of the Gospel: to “repent” (which means “feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin”), and to seek to live a life that reflects the way God intended for us to live.
I realize that those who object could say, “You’re angry because we’re telling you you’re wrong, that you have a misunderstanding of what God wants.” I get that. But I have also asked people to show me, in Scripture, where the error is in the Nashville Statement. The most I have seen so far is the milquetoast, “Jesus is love” or “Jesus said to love your neighbor” or “Jesus says not to judge.”
To finish with a quote from Chambers that I think sums this up for Christians:
“Never tolerate, because of sympathy for yourself or for others, any practice that is not in keeping with a holy God.”
But if you were raised in a traditional Christian church, there is nothing surprising in the document. It affirms that marriage is a lifelong union of one man and one woman; sex and sexual immorality outside of marriage – whether hetero or homosexual – are not justified; same-sex attraction is not part of God’s original creation; and, in what may be a shocker to those folks who feel Christians are science-deniers, it says you can’t nullify science - your biology - for psychological reasons or desires.
One of the signers, preacher and teacher John Piper, said in an article about it that “In recent years, the celebration of attempts to transform oneself from male to female, or female to male, and the normalization of same-sex attraction, including so-called “same-sex marriage,” have reconfigured the global landscape of sexual ethics. ...
"It is built on the persuasion that the Christian Scriptures speak with clarity and authority for the good of humankind. It is permeated by the awareness that we are all sinners in need of divine grace through Jesus Christ. It affirms with joy that no form of sexual sin is beyond forgiveness and healing. It touches the most fundamental and urgent questions of the hour, without presuming to be a blueprint for political action. And it will prove to be, I believe, enormously helpful for thousands of pastors and leaders hoping to give wise, biblical, and gracious guidance to their people. ...”
There is, as you can imagine, quite a bit of backlash against the Nashville Statement. One article I read called it “deadly theology.” Many said things like, “This doesn’t reflect the Jesus I know.” The mayor of the city of Nashville said “so-called "Nashville Statement" is poorly named and does not represent the inclusive values of the city & people of Nashville.” (The document is called the “Nashville Statement” because that is the city where the final version was agreed upon; Nashville has long been the unofficial center of Southern Baptist theology, as the home to the Southern Baptist Convention)
There really isn’t anything new in the statement. It is simply the restating of what has been the traditional view of the Christian faith for roughly 2,000 years. My favorite response, however, was from a Jewish writer named Ben Shapiro, who said, “Did I miss the part of the Nashville Statement where any serious Christian doctrine changed in the slightest?"
Because my family tends to discuss these kind of theological issues, it was an interesting topic of conversation for us, particularly with my youngest son.
The day he and I were engaging in this back-and-forth was September 1. That will be significant in a minute.
I keep a copy of a devotional called “My Utmost For His Highest” by Oswald Chambers. It’s a phenominal devotional that I first discovered while still in high school. It has a devotion for every day of the year, the collected thoughts from a series of talks given by Mr. Chambers in the early 1900s, something like 1911 through 1915 (he died in 1917, I believe).
I have read through this book several times in my life, but it had not been on my reading list recently. However, I came across it while looking for something to read, and I picked it up and turned to that day's date: Sept. 1.
In this particular devotional, Chambers writes “… if through your preaching you convince me I am unholy, I then resent your preaching. The preaching of the gospel awakens an intense resentment because it is designed to reveal my unholiness …”
God’s purpose for man is not our happiness, but our holiness; to make us resemble more closely the character of God through his Son, Jesus. So when we hear things that make us unhappy, or uncomfortable with the way we’re living, it can make us angry or even resentful. I don’t want to stop doing the things I like to do, but because of the “fall” I find that I like doing things that God did not design me to do.
And I think that’s what the Nashville Statement did for some people. In a culture where we’re desperate to convince ourselves and others that God approves of our lives no matter how we’re living, to have someone remind us that the way we’re living may not be in line with God’s will is disturbing. I don’t like to be corrected. I don’t like the suggestion that I may be wrong. I certainly don’t like being told I need to change.
But that is the heart of the Gospel: to “repent” (which means “feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin”), and to seek to live a life that reflects the way God intended for us to live.
I realize that those who object could say, “You’re angry because we’re telling you you’re wrong, that you have a misunderstanding of what God wants.” I get that. But I have also asked people to show me, in Scripture, where the error is in the Nashville Statement. The most I have seen so far is the milquetoast, “Jesus is love” or “Jesus said to love your neighbor” or “Jesus says not to judge.”
To finish with a quote from Chambers that I think sums this up for Christians:
“Never tolerate, because of sympathy for yourself or for others, any practice that is not in keeping with a holy God.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)