Category Archives: Ethics
In addition to my daily Bible reading this year, I am reading through the Apocrypha. These books are accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church, and as “valuable, but not inspired” by other groups. My interest in the Apocrypha began a number of years ago, mostly as a tangent from my study of the book of Revelation. So, anyway, today I was reading in the book of Judith. What amazed me in the story is that Judith (the heroine) actually prays to God that he will bless her plans of deception (which, by the way, ultimately lead to murder), and that, because her plans are ultimately successful, the author intends to suggest that God did bless her deception. (For the reference, see Judith 9:10, 13)
The blatant “in your face” aspect of the deception and resulting murder got me to thinking – I can not really recall having a discussion on the “theology” (I know, really bad term, but I can’t think of another) of deception. That got me to try to remember the examples of deception in the Bible – and there are a number of them! (I do not claim this list is exhaustive – just off the top of my head).
- Abraham deceives two different individuals regarding his relationship with Sarah.
- Isaac makes the same deception regarding Rebekah.
- Tamar deceives Judah, and tricks him into committing an incestuous sexual relationship.
- Jacob deceives Esau, Isaac, and Laban.
- Laban deceives Jacob.
- Joseph deceives his brothers, at least initially.
- Rahab deceives the men of Jericho.
- Jael deceives Sisera, and shortly thereafter murders him.
- David and Jonathan deceive Saul regarding David’s absence at King Saul’s feast.
- Throughout the period of the Judges, deception is the stock-in-trade of deliverance by the judges.
- Saul’s (Paul’s) deliverers help him escape from Damascus through a deceptive maneuver.
- Ananias and Sapphira tried their hands at deception, but it did not go very well.
All of this got me to thinking more – At what point does someone have the right to command absolute, unrestricted, complete truthfulness and honesty? One man who did do some extensive thinking about deception was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. His answer would not please very many people, I am afraid. He concluded that there are some people in this world that simply do not deserve an honest answer, or an honest relationship. Consider for example the whole idea of war – does a general have the responsibility to reveal his plans to his enemy? What about prisoners of war – are they obligated to reveal everything they know regarding plans and tactics to their captors? What about the situation in which an enemy asks about the whereabouts of innocent lives – is there a universal principle dictating that such hiding places be revealed, even if it means certain death to the innocent victims?
I know there are many who believe in the hard and fast rule that no lie, no deception, is ever permissible.
I know there are others who believe that any lie is a good one if it protects you or your loved one.
What I have never experienced is an honest-to-God discussion and examination of the concept of deception, and how we as disciples of Christ are to respond in situations that have no clear-cut answers. Let’s be perfectly honest here, in a number of situations listed above, God not only blesses the deceiver – the Scripture makes it clear that the innocent victim of the deception would be dealt with in a more severe manner if they actively pursued the seeming result of the deception! (See Abraham’s and Isaac’s deceptions in particular).
I have my own thoughts regarding this question – but I am wondering – what say you? Have you thought much about the question of deceptive actions in the Bible (and outright lies)? How would you answer the question – is it ever permissible, even expected, to lie or deceive another person?
I’d appreciate hearing what you have to say!
There is an old saying that goes, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
This works on occasion. Take for example professional football. Any team playing the Dallas Cowboys is automatically my friend. Except, that is, if the Cowboys end up playing the New England Patriots. If the NFL schedules the Cowboys against the Patriots the result is not a football game, it is a curse from the football gods who are punishing us for allowing these teams to exist. A pox of both of them, I say.
Sports are one thing (and hopefully I have not offended too severely) – the field of politics is an entirely different kettle of fish. Many voices today are claiming that we have to support one presidential candidate over against the other simply because the “other” is my enemy, and so the enemy of my enemy suddenly becomes my friend.
Hogwash, fiddle-faddle, and pfffft to all, I say. We are not speaking of that which opposes our personal tastes here. We are speaking about what opposes the kingdom of God. The enemy that opposes the kingdom is my enemy, regardless of their relationship to another enemy which opposes the kingdom.
Both candidates from the two major political parties have plainly taken positions which are diametrically opposed to kingdom principles. Neither candidate can be trusted. Both candidates have records that display dishonesty, corruption, and a flagrant disregard for biblical truth. Both candidates have even taken positions which reveal they disregard the American constitution – let alone the Bible. Neither is qualified to serve in the office, if personal character is in any way, shape, or form, a prerequisite for being the President of the United States. You may argue that this has been true for decades – and you may have a point. But I am not arguing past elections – I am talking about the future of our country as it relates specifically to this election.
I am genuinely worried about the individuals who claim that we MUST vote in this election, lest the vile, wicked, evil, opponent should win. To which I ask, “Which vile, wicked, evil, candidate are you supporting?” This is not an issue of voting for the lesser of two evils (a pathetic option if there ever was one). This is an election in which NO Christian should sully their hands. It is not an issue of right/wrong, good/bad. It is an issue of voting for Satan or the Devil.
If there was ever an election that screams that we listen to the voice of David Lipscomb, it is this one!
Imagine what would happen if every Christian in the United States abstained from voting for the office of President. Imagine what would happen if Christians voted for senators, congressmen, governors, mayors and the local dog catcher, but wrote in “None of the Above” on the top line. Imagine what the media would have to say when the “winner” was rejected by the overwhelming majority of voters, not because they voted for the loser, but because they did not vote at all.
Come November, one of these two wretched choices will be declared the next president. But they must hear – clearly and with no ambiguity – that they have been rejected by those who hold Christian convictions. He or she may hold the office – and we must show respect as far as our pledge to Christ allows us – but that does not mean we have to support her or him.
No enemy of the cross can ever be my friend – no matter how awful the other choice may appear.
How many times have you heard the admonition, “You have to be consistent.” The subject at hand can be a myriad of topics – from discipline to study habits to philosophical approaches to life. Consistency, it would appear, is the holy grail of all being. If we can be consistent, we will have achieved perfection.
Except, that is, when being consistent in one area actually forces us to be inconsistent in another area. Then we have problems. How do we achieve consistency when reality forces us to be inconsistent? Hmm.
I have in mind a couple of examples. One is in the area of ethics. For many people the idea of being pro-life means both opposing abortion and opposing the death penalty. This is a commonly held belief – held by prominent Catholic and Protestant ethical specialists. The idea of consistency is prominent among the arguments given to defend both positions. If you are opposed to the taking of a human life, you have to oppose both abortion and capital punishment, or you are being inconsistent. Consistency demands the rejection of both.
Or does it?
If your only criteria is the taking of a human life, then I suppose you can make the argument. That argument, however, reduces most human life to the level of existence. That is, because we started to exist, we must continue to exist until nature or some disaster, ends that existence. The measure of the importance of life then depends solely upon the quantity of life signs, not their quality or value.
However, this argument utterly dismisses the textual (and contextual) support for capital punishment as stipulated in the Old Testament, and some would argue, is repeated at least in theory in Romans 13 in the New Testament. Passages such as Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17 and Numbers 35:9-34 make it clear that capital punishment is based on (1) the fact that human beings are made in the image of God, (2) the planned, intentional nature of the crime of murder, and derivatively, (3) the crime of murder strikes at the very core of community life. Provision was made for deaths caused by accidents, although even in an accidental death, the one who was involved in the death lost a certain amount of freedom until the death of the high priest. So the issue is not mere life, mere existence. The issue is that the image of God was destroyed, and the ongoing life of the community was put in peril by allowing a murderer to live.
Therefore, to be consistent, a person has to argue that it is the intentional taking of innocent human life that should be uniformly opposed. Therefore, abortion is clearly a violation of God’s will, but capital punishment is not necessarily a violation of God’s will. Now, to be sure, the manner in which capital punishment has been administered in the United States leads many to conclude it is unfairly used. Personally, while I cannot reject the use of capital punishment out-of-hand, the fact that the use of capital punishment has been used unequally in the past does give me great pause as to its moral grounding. What is often overlooked in the contemporary situation is that such a punishment required two eye-witnesses to the crime, and the punishment for falsely accusing someone meant that the accuser was dealt the same type of punishment that he/she was demanding of the accused (Deuteronomy 19:15-21). How many trumped-up charges involving the death penalty would be pursued if the prosecutor was liable to undergo the death penalty for falsely accusing a defendant? Not many, I would venture.
Therefore, I do not see opposing abortion and opposing the death penalty as being consistent. Abortion is the murder of an innocent, unborn child. Capital punishment is the legal execution of a person who has intentionally, with prior planning and “malice aforethought,” taken the life of another human being. In the realm of ethics, the two are light years apart.
On a more specific theological level, the case is often made that to be consistent, once you determine the use of a word or a phrase used by one author, that same word or phrase must be interpreted in the same manner every other time it appears. This is just linguistic (and theological) nonsense. For just one crystal clear example, consider the word translated into most English translations as “church” – the Greek word ekklesia. The argument is made, based on dubious etymological arguments by the way, that the word means “called out,” and so this is the Holy Spirit’s way of identifying the new people of God. Now, the case might be made (and I emphasize the word might) that the word ekklesia is used in such a manner in one place or another in the New Testament, but it is by no means the case that it is always used in that manner. Just read Acts 19:23-41. There an unruly mob gathers in the theatre and even the legal authorities have a hard time getting them under control. Once order is finally restored, the town clerk finally was able to dismiss the assembly. Twice the word ekklesia is used of this unruly mob, and I dare say no one is going to argue that the holy, sanctified, born-again body of Christ is being referred to in these verses (39-41).
This point is really very obvious in many situations. Paul in Romans and James in the book that bears his name use the word faith in strikingly different ways. I would argue that Paul himself uses faith in slightly (or perhaps even more significant) different ways. As with any situation, context is controlling. To be consistent, we have to bear in mind the entire context of the passage, and define and apply each word as is appropriate for that setting.
So, being consistent in one manner (always using a word using one, single definition) is to be inconsistent in interpreting that word when it is used in a different context. To be consistent in the application of one ethical norm is to be inconsistent in the application of another ethical norm that is built on a different theological foundation. This sometimes creates untidy, even messy, questions of interpretation and moral decision making. Life is that way – flying is not always in CAVU conditions (clear and visibility unlimited). Sometimes you have to fly in the fog. That requires great care, and a determination to understand the entire picture, not just one tiny little slice of it.
And the people of Israel cried out to the LORD, saying, “we have sinned against thee, because we have forsaken our God and have served the Baals.” And the LORD said to the people of Israel, “Did I not deliver you from the Egyptians and from the Amorites, from the Ammonites and from the Philistines? The Sidonians also, and the Amalekites, and the Maonites, oppressed you; and you cried to me, and I delivered you out of their hand. Yet you have forsaken me and served other gods; therefore I will deliver you no more. Go and cry to the gods whom you have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your distress.” (Joshua 10:10-14, RSV)
For someone who loves a good sense of irony, this passage is just perfect. The Israelites were up against it. They were being attacked by the Philistines and the Ammonites. The Israelites had been serving the gods of these nations, but it was obvious that the faster they went, the behinder they got. Finally, somebody (or a few somebodies) decided, “Hey, let’s call on that LORD God, you know, the one that helped our parents and grandparents and great-grand parents. Maybe he can help.”
And the LORD, master of everything including dramatic irony, said “Pfffft.” (I paraphrase slightly.) Israel had made its bed, sleeping with all the Blue-tick hounds, and now they were complaining about the fleas. “Tough luck” said God – “Why don’t you call on all those fancy idols you have been worshiping for so long – maybe they can help.”
Well, we all know the story – Israel did put away the false gods, they (re)committed themselves to serving the One True God, and once again God heeded their cries and provided them with a deliverer.
I wonder if God does not refer to the same playbook every once in a while.
All across this wonderful fruited plain we hear the cry of the “oppressed.” “Lord, save us” is the cry. “We are in a bit of a pickle down here, and we could really use your help!”
And God says, “Pfffft.” (Once again, I paraphrase slightly.) “Go and call on those gods you have been worshiping for over 200 years now – see if they can rescue you!”
Let’s see if these gods can save us –
Politics – yeah, like mixing oil and water has worked so well for us. The crass greed of the Republican party versus the even more crass licentiousness of the Democratic party. “Vote for me because I am less evil than my opponent.” The wonder is not that our system is collapsing, the wonder is that it has taken this long to collapse.
Philosophy – okay, if our own muddled thinking got us into this mess, maybe our own muddled thinking will get us out! And we wonder what defines insanity.
Technology – I know, let’s create something – fashion it with our own hands (not really understanding what the long-term results will be) and then place the entire survival of the human race on that creation! Dynamite was supposed to be so powerful that its creation would end the possibility of war (so thought its creator – Alfred Nobel). Nuclear energy has worked out so well for us. Huge wind turbines are the latest, greatest saviors of life on the planet – unless you happen to be a migratory bird, and then, well, too bad for you.
Education – this one might have helped, except that we quit applying it about three decades ago. Who knows if it would have been all that great, seeing as how it was the source for numbers two and three above.
The point is that we (American Christians and secularists alike) have been worshiping at the altar of idols for most, if not all, of our history. There have been brief periods when we “call upon the LORD,” but they have been few and short-lived. Even today, when conservative Christians bewail the moral stagnation of our country, our solutions are based entirely upon idols – we look to a new President, or a new Congress, or a new Supreme Court. We demand a new educational system. We demand new (and expensive) weapons to guarantee our “peace,” when we live in terror every day.
To all of this I say, “Pfffft.” (And I do not paraphrase here). I am tired of trotting out the old solutions, the solutions that have not solved anything. I would like Christians to try something we have tried all too infrequently throughout the history of the United States – I would like Christians to rely upon the power of Christ living in and through the church. I want to see Christians feeding the poor and housing the homeless – who needs government programs? I want to see the church assume the responsibility of teaching our young people – and who cares about the Department of Miseducation? I want to see the church take the role of changing the lives of prostitutes and drug addicts and the hungry and the naked and the “poor and huddled masses, yearning to be free.” And I would like to see the church expect – demand even – that a changed moral life accompany a changed physical life. Jesus healed the sick – but he also healed the sickness of sin and bade his followers leave their former lives of rebellion against God.
It can happen. It should happen. It would happen if we would just try it. Otherwise, our faith in God is just empty, vain, words.
And if you don’t believe me, well, all I have to say is “pfffft.”
And now, the moment you have all been waiting for – okay maybe not all of you, and maybe not THE moment you have been waiting for . . . but here it is anyway!
Thanks to my lovely wife and the talents and kind assistance of one of our members, here is a video of the latest attempt at a sermon by the ol’ Freightdawg.
Anyone needing (or just wanting) a new preacher – feel free to share.
Thanks, and as always, I appreciate your companionship in the fog . . .
A feature story in the July, 2016 Christian Chronicle (www.christianchronical.org) explains a rather severe exam could be in the offing for colleges and universities that have traditionally been associated with Christian churches – any college or university with a faith-based charter or by-laws. After steam-rolling every other opponent it has faced, the LGBTQ movement has now set its sights on institutions of higher education that (a) refuse to accept the demands of the LGBTQ movement, and (b) receive federal funding. The attack at this point seems to be focused on removing the federal funding, and in an interesting twist, denying these colleges and universities the ability to participate in NCAA governed athletic activities.
The mechanism that is allowing this particular attack is the piece of legislation known as “Title IX” – a law that guaranteed there would be no discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded educational institutions. Originally, the law was designed to provide for equal educational, and just as important, athletic opportunities for females. For every sport limited to males, there needed to be an equal opportunity (same sport, or a different sport) for females. The law had the unfortunate effect of having schools remove some male sports teams (high school wrestling was particularly hard hit), but now that seems like a minor bump in the road. Now the real target has appeared – remove federal funding from these hate-driven, homophobic bastions of conservatism, or at least kill their football programs.
The main channel of federal funding for most Christian colleges and universities is through federally guaranteed student loans. Take away those loans and you take away the greatest likelihood that a student can afford to attend a private college or university. That would eventually kill the institution, and force all students into state funded colleges and universities where the LGBTQ dogma has been firmly entrenched for years now. A lesser goal, although no less juicy for emotional reasons, would be to prohibit Christian colleges and universities from participating in NCAA governed athletics. That would, in effect, cripple a large majority of Christian college and university athletic programs, as the NCAA governs three different levels of competition (Division I, II, and III).
A Christian college or university can apply for certain exemptions regarding provisions of the Title IX law. While all Christian colleges and universities I know of offer full athletic and educational opportunities for females, there are other issues of compliance which lie beneath the surface, but would create significant moral issues for these institutions. Take housing for just one example – many (if not most) colleges and universities offer housing both for single and married students. Currently, Christian colleges and universities can limit males to male-only dorms, females to female-only dorms, and limit married housing to heterosexual couples (male/female married couples). Take away those exemptions and there can be no gender-specific housing – and in regard to married couple housing, now that the Supreme Court has legalized homosexual marriage, homosexual and lesbian couples who are legally “married” could apply for university sponsored housing. Although apparently many would celebrate this development, to an overwhelming majority of alumni from some institutions, this would simply be unacceptable.
So – a test of epic proportions lies not too far on the horizon for these institutions. Some who claim a Christian heritage are only too willing to comply. (I need only mention Baylor University, a Baptist institution, which knowingly shielded a practicing lesbian basketball player to enhance the chances of an NCAA title. As the Christian Chronicle article makes clear, Pepperdine University, a university once associated with the Churches of Christ, proudly proclaims that their policies are in full compliance with the stipulations of Title IX – and see no need to ask for exemptions). Abilene Christian University (thinly associated with Churches of Christ) has just spent millions of dollars transitioning from NCAA Division II to Division I, so I seriously doubt they will jeopardize any NCAA standing with a request for Title IX exemptions.
It will be very, very interesting to see how these colleges and universities make their decisions. Do they forgo federal student loan money and find creative, alternate methods of assisting students to attend? Do they give up their expensive sports programs in favor of joining athletic associations governed by groups other than the NCAA? Or do they comply with the progressive LGBTQ demands and surrender the right to make institutional decisions based on the teachings of Scripture?
Please fasten your seat belts and return your tray tables to their upright and locked positions. The ride ahead promises to be turbulent. I do not envy the administrators of these institutions. I do pray, however, that they have the courage to stand with Scripture and refuse to be bullied into submission over this issue. Those of us who hope that another generation of young Christians will have the opportunity to study at a college or university committed to Christian precepts must stand shoulder to shoulder with the administrations of those institutions who refuse to bow the knee to this form of legalized blackmail.
** Update – just today I came across this blog by Ed Stetzer that documents a legislative agenda in California to limit Christian based education strictly to seminaries and college programs focused solely on Christian ministry. In other words, those preparing for Christian ministry can be educated in Christian principles, but no one else can.
(some idle ramblings after meditating on a message that was presented last evening . . . and no, I am not picking on the speaker, but rather extending his thoughts and owning up to my own convictions)
I am a part of a small group of Americans. Talk about minority, I bet we do not even show up on the list of endangered species – because there has to be a certain number to be counted in order to even be considered endangered. We could probably hold a national convention in a broom closet. My closest ally and my greatest enemy might both be looking at me from my mirror. Call me a heretic, a traitor, a renegade, a scandalous lout – each probably fits some form of my rebellion.
But, I just simply refuse to accept that America is a Christian nation, that God has specifically chosen America for any purpose (other than to display his grace and his judgment), that any one single political party has a corner on righteousness, or that it is a duty, or even a good idea, that disciples of Christ get mixed up (polluted would be another word) in politics.
Barton W. Stone and David Lipscomb are my heroes – and that is probably enough to get my membership cancelled in most Churches of Christ – especially if they know anything about Barton W. Stone and/or David Lipscomb.
My aversion to politics can be summed up thusly:
1. God gave Adam and Eve a specific law in the garden – and that law did not keep them from acting immorally. God gave Cain a specific law – and that did not keep Cain from acting immorally. God gave the Israelites very specific laws (over 600 if the number is to be believed) and that did not keep the Israelites from acting immorally, even at the site where they received those laws. God sent prophet after prophet to remind the people of Israel of the laws to which they had bound themselves. That did not keep the children of Israel from acting immorally. You cannot make a person, a group of people (even the church), or a nation moral by passing laws. Not even God could do that. Why can’t we learn this? Why do we put so much emphasis on trying to accomplish that which cannot be accomplished?
2. The sum total of politics can be described as: money, power, and compromise. If politics was a noble effort once upon a time (as in a fairy tale) it certainly is not now. It takes a staggering amount of money to simply be elected to a state office, let alone a national office. The role of county dog catcher might be different, but money drives politics. Second, politics is all about power. Power as in I have it, you don’t, do you have to do what I tell you. What was it that Jesus said about power and service? Oh, yeah, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28). Third, to be successful in American politics means you have to compromise, because while power is intoxicating and polluting, it is never absolute. There is always someone on the other side of the political aisle who has equal power among his or her constituents, and the only way to move anything in American politics is to compromise. The art of compromise might be acceptable if you are debating the color of carpet in the living room or the price of eggs. But, could someone please tell me how it would be possible to compromise on a question of morals? How can you ‘compromise’ on the question of abortion, or the ethics of the Affordable Care Act (which is neither affordable nor caring)? To say that abortion is wrong after “x” time period, but acceptable before that time period is simply disgusting. To say that homosexuality violates your personal code of religious beliefs, but that you have to vote another way because of some court ruling is to declare that you really have no controlling personal code of religious beliefs. Compromise is the opposite of the gospel call to absolute surrender to the will of God.
3. No matter how you try to wiggle out of this, you cannot vote for someone to do something GOOD, without out equally being responsible for the EVIL that person creates/perpetrates. You cannot applaud and share in the advances of the causes you advocate, and reject the negative consequences. I learned this the hard way with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Regardless of the good each was able to accomplish, each man certainly violated core biblical principles in decisions they made or did not make. I cannot take pride in one part of their legacy and disavow the other. If I voted for them, I am “guilty” for both. I do not think most Christians stop to consider that fact.
4. I could list many Scriptures which call the American system of politics into question. However, one will suffice: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24, RSV). You cannot be a ‘little bit’ political and a ‘little bit’ Christian. You cannot split your allegiance 50/50. You are either going to believe that politics is the answer to the problems of humanity, or you are going to look to the Word (Christ) and the will of God. If you think America is a Christian nation, and that the constitution of the United States comprises some kind of 28th book of the New Testament, then you are going to put your faith ultimately in the power and process of the American political system. You will also never be content, and you will always be in a position of aggression and enmity with your opponents, because they believe you are the enemy and they will not begrudge an inch of political landscape to you. And, by the way, you will never find an acceptable candidate to support unquestionably. No human is perfect, and so you will have to compromise some of YOUR beliefs in order to elect someone who is the “lesser of two evils” in some aspect of your religious beliefs. Sell your soul to the devil and you find some nasty repercussions.
Or, you can stand with Joshua as he gave his final challenge to the people of Israel, “Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)
Many suggestions are made as to why the Church is so ineffective today, why so many people are leaving the church, why, despite the huge numbers of attendees, there appears to be so little conviction among those who profess to be disciples of Christ. While I believe many answers are a part of the answer, I think one major reason is that so many church leaders, and therefore church members, have equated Christianity with the American political system. And, because Jesus actually expects total commitment, (that nasty verse about taking up your cross and following him daily) it is far easier to sign a registration card as a Republican or a Democrat and worship the god of politics and power that way. Simply put, politics IS the religion of the vast majority of Americans.
That’s why I am a heretic, a traitor, and a pacifistic scoundrel. That’s okay by me. As I look at the first three hundred years of church history (up until the great Constantinian debacle), I find myself in some mighty fine company. I may be alone today – but, boy, do I have some awesome ancestors.
There has been an incredible uproar (pardon the pun) over the killing of a beloved black-maned lion, Cecil. Actually, Cecil was not just killed – he was lured to his death from a safe game preserve, then shot with a bow and arrow. He suffered for 40 hours before the poachers managed to find him and finish the kill with a rifle. The supposed “hunter” was a rich American who paid $50,000 for the privilege to “hunt” a lion. This was not a hunt. This was an act of barbarism.
What has upset many others is that there appears to be more people upset over the killing of Cecil than the revelation that Planned Parenthood sells the harvested parts of aborted babies to medical labs and transplant clinics. The logic is that an unborn child is of far greater value than an African lion, so why are people not more upset over abortion? I am not sure that question is valid. I do strongly believe a human life is more valuable than that of a wild animal. But I also have a somewhat different take on the difference between the reaction to the killing of Cecil and the Planned Parenthood fiasco.
I think the two are actually related, and the furor over the killing of Cecil points to a fundamental crisis of the human spirit that is also demonstrated through abortion.
The killing of Cecil is so raw – so blatant, and the greed of the killers is so easy to spot. The greed of the abortionists is more obscure (indeed, to listen to their defenders, it does not even exist!). But there is another commonality between the lion poachers and the abortionists: arrogance.
What is it about a man who would pay $50,000 to kill an animal? Conservationism? Give me a break. If you want to preserve wild animals, you could donate the $50,000 to an animal preserve and take a picture. No – these people (and there are more than you might think, of both sexes) believe that because they have the money, and because the have the right equipment, and because they have the “right” to kill an animal, that those things justify these supposed “hunts.” What is it about those who believe it is perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn child? These people (once again, of both sexes) believe that because they have the money, the technology, and because the Supreme Court has discovered the “right” for them to take the lives of these unborn children, that they are justified in their murderous actions.
In both situations the commonality is arrogance – the same arrogance that was on display in the Garden of Eden and is on display every time we as humans decide that we are smarter than God. It is rebellion against God’s will. In the words of the Word of God – it is sin. And sin, whether the poaching of a majestic lion or the murder of an unborn child, has its root in the heart of the human being. We wantonly destroy because we believe we are gods, or perhaps that we are better than gods.
There was, and is, no excuse for the poaching of Cecil. I was sickened as I read the story. I hope the individual responsible for this travesty is held accountable in some form or fashion, and that the process of these “trophy hunts” is ended. I am equally sickened by the actions of Planned Parenthood. I would like to see all abortionists punished for the murders they commit. I do not have to choose between outrage over one or the other. Both reveal the depths of the emptiness of the human soul. When we decide that our ability to destroy God’s creation (for no other reason than to magnify our own importance) is more important than our responsibility to protect and maintain that creation, it does not matter whether the life is human or not. Once again, I am not saying the life of a lion is equal to the life of a human being. That would certainly not be biblical or moral. What I am saying is the disregard for God’s creation is equal in both situations.
As I know many hunters, and have hunted big game myself, I feel I must draw a distinction between fairly hunting for food and what these “trophy” hunts project. Many thousands of honest hunters harvest what God has given to man in order to eat what they harvest, and also to manage game herds and bird populations. This is what I refer to as “husbanding” or nurturing God’s creation. Paying $50,000 to kill an animal that is lured to you is not a hunt, it is not husbanding God’s creation – it is killing for the sake of seeing an animal die. There is no justification for such action. That people even attempt to defend this shooter disappoints me.
Just a thought for those who think that we can give the poacher a pass while focusing entirely on the abortionists – until we come to the realization that ALL of God’s creation is our responsibility to protect, we will NEVER be able to effectively end the scourge of abortion. In other words, we are going to have to come to grips with what God told Adam in Genesis 1:26-31 – God’s very first command to humankind. If we are to have dominion over God’s creation, we must humble ourselves and recognize that it is God’s creation, he created it to be good, and we are not permitted to destroy it for our own selfish, arrogant, desires.
I’ll give you two quotes, you decide which one is acceptable and which one is unacceptable.
“Infidels in the region have three choices: convert to Muhammed, pay a tax, or die.” – The Islamic State to non-Muslims in their territory.
“The time has come that we need to either convert them, which I think is next to impossible, or kill them.” Phil Robertson, patriarch of the “Duck Dynasty” family and elder in the Church of Christ, speaking about the Muslim extremists on the Sean Hannity radio show.
Okay, have you figured out which one is wrong? I’ll give you all the time you need……
Here is a hint. Both statements are reprehensible, and for the same reason. Both are born of a far right-wing ideology that replaces faith with fanaticism. “If you do not agree with me, you deserve to die, no questions asked, no quarter given.”
The first statement is reprehensible enough coming from practitioners of the “Religion of Peace.” The second is even far more reprehensible, coming from a follower of the Prince of Peace, who sacrificed his own life so that all men could have the hope of a reconciliation with a Holy God.
How is it that men can replace religion with such hatred? Especially coming from one who claims to follow the Christ who said, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.” Somehow I do not see how, “Convert or we will bomb you into eternity” is much of a loving or prayerful statement.
Tonight in our college Bible study we read and discussed the book of Jonah. The college kids got it. God loves all people. Even the people of Nineveh, the capital of the nation of Assyria.
As in, the capital of the proto-nation of Iraq, the modern day nation of all the Muslims Phil Robertson wants to convert or kill.
God actually loved the Assyrians enough to send a prophet to them to warn them of their sinful ways. Yes, the message was, “repent or perish,” but that message came from a God that is “gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.”
I think Phil Robertson needs to read his Bible a little more carefully. I think he needs to read the Sermon on the Mount, and I think he needs to read the book of Jonah.
And I think that anyone who agrees with the kind of faith that would rather bomb someone into damnation rather than pray for them a path into glory should really, really re-examine whether they are following the Prince of Peace or a hate-filled creed that is as damnable as the ideology they seek to destroy.
Taking a break from writing to do a little writing...and it's been a long summer of writing!
~ ~ ~
Another example of the inability of America to move beyond its racist past has embroiled the country in a racial stare down. The major media outlets are full of articles and stories and editorials about how we can fix this problem or that problem. The biggest problem is, the solutions offered will only serve to make the problem (racism) worse. Every solution involves the distinction of races, making racism the measuring tool for the elimination of racism. It just won’t work.
For example, the overwhelming majority of articles, and editorials I have read over the past several weeks pontificate that “white people are going to have to…” or “white Christians are going to have to…” or more generically, “the white Church is going to have to…” When you identify a group of people by their skin color or some other ethnic identification you have become part of the problem. You are a racist.
I have noticed a glaring absence in all of these articles and editorials and blogs. Nowhere have I read, “the problem with black America is…” or “black Christians must…” or “the black Church must…” According to the overwhelming majority of mainstream media, “Christian” bloggers and preachers, the only people who have a race problem are white people.
That is simply racist, and you probably think I am racist for thinking so.
In this latest example of racial unrest, a young man was killed by a police officer. Oops, I forgot to mention those two adjectives: a young black man was killed by a white police officer. What would have happened if the officer was. . .black, or Latino? What if the officer was female instead of male? Would there have been riots? Where would Al Sharpton be?
You see, there is a huge racial problem in America. There can be no denying that fact. Deniers in this case are not only ignorant, they are stupid.
There may have been a racial component in the shooting of the young man in Missouri. Only an unbiased search for truth will bring that out. If the officer is guilty of a racial bias he needs to be punished appropriately. If there was no racial bias, and if, as has been suggested, the officer was fighting to save his life, then he needs to be exonerated.
But, this also needs to be said… Every day dozens of young black men are killed as the result of gangs, drugs, and other criminal acts. There are no riots, there are no marches, no caravan of satellite TV trucks show up, there is a glaring absence of the politicians crying out for justice and equality. The difference is that in Missouri the black man was killed by a white police officer, and in Chicago and New York and Los Angeles and Atlanta and in virtually every other major metropolitan city, when a black man dies at the hands of another black man no one seems to notice or care.
In God’s kingdom there is no such thing as race. Every human is equal. Every death matters – God does not wish that any should die (Ezekiel 33:11; 2 Peter 3:9). God certainly did not desire the death of the young man in Missouri. And God does not wish the death of any police officer who is killed in the line of his or her duty to protect the lives and property of the citizens he or she is sworn to protect.
The reality is, until we can learn to see past race and view each death as the death of a human being, without any attachments, we will never move beyond the issue of racism. As long as we use race as the measuring stick, we are doomed to be a nation of racists.
As Martin Luther King Jr. once so famously and correctly said, let us move toward the day when all young men and young women will be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.