Racism – Absolutely Not!

o-RACISM-HANDS-facebookWhen I was stationed in HI, I was a member of Trinity Missionary Baptist Church which was right outside the gates of Pearl Harbor. I was the only white person in the congregation. I played drums as part of their music ministry and it was an extraordinary experience!

There was never even the slightest hint of racial tension. It wasn’t about ethnicity, it was all about God’s grace. Yes, it was a little awkward when I first walked in. I was a guest of the organ player and when I determined to join that first morning, no one was especially sure what I was doing. But the first Wednesday night rehearsal that all changed when it became apparent that I could groove. We made an album, we were nominated for an award that had us in tuxedos and evening gowns. We played all over the island and sometimes our Sunday morning worship services went beyond three hours. It was an amazing experience. And not just from the standpoint of the sweet, sanctified funk that we created. I had never eaten ribs before and I still remember the sound of a kettle of black eyed peas being poured into a serving bowl…

Nasty!

Autographed copy of "My Life With Dr. Martin Luther King" I received from Correta Scott King

Signed copy of “My Life With Dr. Martin Luther King” Coretta Scott King was kind enough to autograph for me.

But can you see why I’m not just baffled but even frustrated how the flame of “race” is constantly being fanned by people who seem to thrive on division? They make these outrageous statements, they assert these realities that intentionally ignore the fact that racism exists primarily in the minds of those who can benefit by it – either by the acquisition of votes and power or the proliferation of the idea it’s not necessary to take responsibility for one’s actions.

Are there individuals out there that disgrace themselves by attempting to elevate themselves at the expense of another based solely on the pigmentation of their skin? Sure. Pride and ignorance are sicknesses that some make no attempt to remedy with the healing medicine of common sense and Truth.

But to cite injustice and bigotry as the primary reason why many minorities are poor and, in some cases, lawless requires an intentional dismissal of those statistics that reveal poor choices being made due to absence of character. Choosing to drop out of High School, choosing to get pregnant out of wedlock, in some cases, even choosing to remain unemployed because of the government subsidies that can be obtained by remaining jobless, are choices and not situations that are forced upon you.

What is racism? Racism is defined as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”

In up until the 1960’s and early 1970’s, the term “racism” described the discrimination and the persecution represented by Jim Crowe laws, the KKK, segregation and the myriad of ways in which black people were excluded and prevented from being able to engage those opportunities that were otherwise available to everyone else. It wasn’t just unfair. In some instances, it was violent to the point of being lethal.

Today racism is much different. In addition to things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Affirmative Action which, taken together, make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion or sex, being racist is considered by most to be a dishonorable and an offensive mindset.

Still, there are some very vocal types who insist that racism is still very much alive and well in the form of job discrimination, housing discrimination, racial profiling, police brutality, the school to prison pipeline, the practice of “stop and frisk” as well as harsher prison sentences.

On the surface, some of these observations appear credible. But upon closer inspection, it’s evident that there are other factors that play a substantial role in producing the environments and the circumstances that some minorities lament as being solely the result of a system that is intent on persecuting and limiting the African American community.

Let’s take a look…

How can you argue that racism is not a driving factor in income inequality?

How can you argue that racism is not a driving factor in income inequality?

That was the question posed to Ben Shapiro in a recent round table discussion. He responded by saying, “Because it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.”

His response made the other two featured speakers laugh, as though what he was suggesting was ludicrous to the point of being comical (click here to view the video).

The thing is, it’s not just income inequality that drives the race issue. The underlying mantra of those who insist that the US is still a racist country is that if you’re black, you’re:

…and all this because of an prejudiced system that is resolved to oppress you simply because of your ethnicity.

A Deeply Racist Country

The first question on the table is: “Is poverty a result of racism?” Is it the pigmentation of one’s skin and the way in which some will unjustly attach a series of character flaws to a person’s ethnicity – is that what produces the community of minorities who struggle to generate enough revenue to put food on the table?

According to an article by Chris Arnade, America is still a deeply racist country. He says:

We tell the stories of success and say: see anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, further denigrating those who can’t escape poverty. It plays into the false and pernicious narrative that poverty is somehow a fault of desire, a fault of intelligence, a fault of skills. No, poverty is not a failing of the residents of Hunts Point who are just as decent and talented as anyone else. Rather it is a failing of our broader society.

In another article, he compares a New York City prostitute named Takeesha and a Wall Street trader named “Mr. One-Glove.” Takeesha was raped by a family member at 11, and pimped by another family member at the age of 13. She ran away and is now supporting herself and her drug habit by charging men $50.00 a pop for having sex with her. At the time of the article, she was serving in time for prison for possession. Meanwhile, Mr One Glove, who, while he is not guilty of anything illegal, his practices are often unethical. Yet, because of the world he lives in, with the right lawyer, he won’t go to jail. If anything, he’ll profit all the more.

Arnade goes on to say that we have built two separate societies: One is characterized by privilege and opportunity, the other is impoverished and doomed to a lifetime of limited options. And because most of these poverty-stricken neighborhoods are predominantly black, the conclusion is that racism is the cause of poverty and the “have’s” and the “have-not’s” are divided according to ethnicity and nothing more.

But while Arnade articulates an eloquent summary of what many feel to be a brand of racism that mirrors the sixties – but in a more sinister and subtle way – there are others in the black community who feel very differently.

If All Whites Were to Move to Canada and Eurpoe

Robert Woodson is the founder and president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. He says, “I tell people, what is your solution? If all whites tomorrow were to move to Canada and Europe, tell me how it would affect the black on black crime rate, how would it it affect the out-of-wedlock births, how would it affect the spread of AIDS? How would it affect those issues?”

“What I’m saying to Black America, we must stop victimization. We must stop complaining about what white folks have done to us in the past. We must go into ourselves, as Dr. King said, and find indelible ink — our own emancipation proclamation.”

CNN’s Don Lemon offered some commentary that inspired all kinds of negative reaction on social media when he claimed that the black community needed to clean up their act and that much of what they claimed to be a result of racial prejudice was, in fact, a collection of financial and social burdens of their own making.

Morgan Freeman added to Lemon’s perspective in an interview with Mike Wallace. At one point he says that he doesn’t want a “Black History Month” – that Black History is American History. When Wallace responds by asking, “How are we going to get rid of racism?”, Freeman answers by saying, “Quit talking about it.” He goes on to say that he’s going to stop calling Wallace a “white man” and he expects Wallace to quit calling him a “black man.” The idea being that we stop emphasizing the differences in order to better appreciate the commonalities.

What Happens at a Traffic Light

But what are the commonalities?

From a positive point of view, we’re all human beings and bear the Fingerprint of our Creator. With that comes dignity, value and a capacity to do extraordinary things.

“…it’s your responsibility”

 

We’re responsible for our actions in:

We’re all also responsible for our actions. Think about this: When a motorist approaches a traffic light, they’re obligated to stop if it’s red. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a man or woman driving the car, nor is their ethnic background relevant. In that moment, the only thing that matters is the fact that they’re responsible for stopping their car. Should they choose to not stop, the laws of physics do not delineate according to gender, income or race.

Don Lemmon’s commentary focused on five issues, one of them being the number of unwed mothers in the black community. Should you conceive a child as an unwed mother, you are:

  • more likely to grow up in a single-parent household
  • experience unstable living arrangements
  • live in poverty, and have socio-emotional problems

As these children reach adolescence, they are more likely to:

  • have low educational attainment
  • engage in sex at a younger age
  • have a birth outside of marriage themselves

As young adults, children born outside of marriage are more likely to:

  • be idle (neither in school nor employed)
  • have lower occupational status and income
  • have more troubled marriages and more divorces than those born to married parents

The above statistics are not true for just one particular people group. Rather, they’re true for everyone. Just like the aforementioned traffic light, should you choose to disregard the boundaries that constitute moral behavior, the repercussions that ensue are not partial to any one ethnicity. Regardless if you’re black or white, the unwed mother is obligated to travel a road fraught with financial difficulties and professional hardships. And what’s tragic is that she also places her child on a fatherless path that provides fertile soil for all kinds of rebellious behavior.

In 2013, 72% of all black babies were born to unwed mothers. In speaking with a source who has over 25 years experience in law enforcement, he reinforced the above numbers by adding the fact that the child born to an unwed mother is typically raised by the grandmother until they’re old enough to attend school. By that point, they’re coming home to a situation that’s unsupervised and, in the absence of a strong father figure, they’re enticed by the sinister characters in their neighborhood that have the money and the car – all of which were obtained in the context of vice. These are the individuals that are revered as role models. Meanwhile, their hormones inspire them to seek out intimate encounters with the opposite sex and, in the absence of an individual who’s either willing, or at least capable, of teaching them the advantages of moral behavior, the cycle perpetuates itself.

Recognize that the decisions being made in the context of the above scenarios are not a result of a “system,” nor is it a situation where one is being forced to engage in a collection of activities that are neither wise nor moral. Rather, it’s a matter of the will. In 2013, 72% of the African American couples who engaged in an illicit sexual encounter chose to do so knowing full well they were running a red light.

You Need Money to Pay the Bills

Imagine the situation confronting a young, unwed mother with a newborn. Whatever aspirations they may have had for furthering their education are now superseded by the need to get a job in order to support her child. Her marketable skills are typical of her age group which translates to a minimum wage paying position. Even the most basic of living conditions often require more than what can be paid for with that kind of an hourly salary. It’s about then that the choice to run that red light nine months ago begins to resonate as the life altering choice that it truly was.

Consider the world as it looks to one of the 41% of black students that dropped out of High School according to a 2012-2013 report. Without a High School diploma, their options are eBN-HV901_Welfar_G_20150413121700xtremely limited. Speeding through that particular red light might’ve looked liberating at first, but now confronted with having to purchase your own toilet paper, the reality of your financial future is revealed as limited at best.

It’s these kinds of dilemmas that drive people to apply for government assistance. But it’s not because of their skin color that they’re having to contend with a minuscule bank account, again, it’s because of the choices they’ve made. And bear in mind, these individuals are not necessarily lazy or corrupt. One third of those who are being assisted by the government are employed as can be see by the diagram to the right. But when you look at the jobs that are listed, you can understand why there’s still a shortfall in that they’re employed in the context of a minimum wage paying positions – few of which were ever intended to be full time careers.

Some want to argue that those who employ minimum wage workers should increase their wages. Perhaps. But if it can be determined that the skillset being brought to the table by these employees is an extension of the consequences precipitated by the red lights they chose to disregard, then it’s no longer an injustice on the part of the system that needs to be addressed, as much as it’s the lack of morals and wisdom on the part of the individuals who are now insisting it’s the government’s job to alter the marketplace.

Poverty = Crime

Charging a person with having a deficiency in their moral character is a bold accusation. It’s easier and far less confrontational to assert that poverty represents a natural segue into a life of crime. Hence the need for more education, government programs and a greater awareness of how racism and capitalism represent the principal forces that cause our nation’s prison population to swell.

In some ways, it’s easy to imagine how a person’s moral resolve may falter in the face of starvation and destitution. But when you pop the hood on the true financial status of those who are receiving government aid, while their situation might appear meager, it’s not necessarily what you would imagine.

In a National Review article, Dennis Prager writes:

According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey for 2005…among all poor households: Over 99 percent have a refrigerator, television, and stove or oven. Eighty-one percent have a microwave; 75 percent have air conditioning; 67 percent have a second TV; 64 percent have a clothes washer; 38 percent have a personal computer. As for homelessness, one-half of 1 percent living under the poverty line have lost their homes and live in shelters. Seventy-five percent of the poor have a car or truck. Only 10 percent live in mobile homes or trailers, half live in detached single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments. Forty-two percent of all poor households own their home, the average of which is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. According to a recent Census Bureau report, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cell phones. When the Left talks about the poor, they don’t mention these statistics, because what matters to the Left is inequality, not poverty.

The fact that you have a microwave and a personal computer doesn’t mean that you’re comfortable or content. But it does diminish, if not completely eradicate the idea, that the crime being committed in the projects is driven by an empty stomach or the need for shelter.

Why Do This?

If it’s not the basic necessities of life that inspire a young person to adopt the mindset of a criminal, then what? According to a source that serves on the local police force, should you take the time to listen to a police scanner, the majority of calls that come in are black on black and black on white episodes. Why?

Black people constitute 14.3% of the total population based on 2014 statistics. Yet, despite they’re being the minority in terms of the American citizenry, they represent the largest percentage of those who are incarcerated (37% black inmates, 32% white and 22% Hispanic).

According to a local black police officer, who also served with distinction in the Armed Forces, the problem is not financial. Again, it’s symptomatic of a fatherless community. Regardless of how some want to dismiss that as a contributing factor, let alone a principal cause, consider the fact that 70% of long term prison inmates grew up in broken homes. However you want to uncoil the rope that represents the mindset of the troubled minority, in the vast majority of cases it’s the emotional and psychological void left by an absentee father that drives their rebellious appetites.

What About Takeesha?

Remember Takeesha? She was the woman earlier referred to in the article by Chris Arnade. According to Arnade, she represents the flawed foundation upon which our system is based. It’s a result of bigotry and a system of capitalism overseen by prejudiced Caucasians that restrict her existence to a life of prostitution, incarceration and drug abuse.

But what about the family member who sexually assaulted her when she was 11? What about the other family member that forced her into a life of prostitution? Why is it that the most obvious and powerful emotional influences aren’t being held accountable? Capitol Hill is not going to raise or rescue Takessha. It can’t. It’s not a program or a fund that protects and nurtures minors, let alone prodigal adults. It’s the parents’ role to raise their children in a way where they can take responsibility for themselves and go on to not just survive, but to thrive. Should that paradigm not be in place, what then? Can the government help? Maybe. But if that assistance translates to merely subsidizing the mindset that maintains a status of immunity when it comes to taking responsibility for your actions, then you’re no longer talking about “assistance,” you’re simply financing a perspective that insists others should do for them what they need to do for themselves.

That’s not an absence of compassion. That’s compassion extended in the company of wisdom.

Norway is often held up as an example by those who want to fault our nation for being less than attentive to the plight of those who are unemployed and struggling to make ends meet. But unlike the US where you can conceivably stay on some sort of government assistance indefinitely, Norway gives you boundaries. To receive unemployment benefits, you have to register as an unemployed citizen and you are expected to be actively looking for work. Depending on your previous position, the length of time you can receive unemployment is a year. After that, you’re on your own. There may be some extenuating circumstances that will allow for a longer period of time, but the premise upon which you’re able to receive aid is that your scenario is a temporary one and you’re going to get back in the job market.

Does Racism Exist?

Does Racism exist? Yes. There are moral cowards out there that use ethnic slurs and jump at every opportunity to elevate themselves over another based on nothing other than their ethnicity. Does Racism exist to the point where you can say that it constitutes a legitimate barrier between you as a minority and what you’re capable of?

Absolutely not.

We have a black President, who won both the electoral and popular vote in 2008 and 2012. We have a black Attorney General (Loretta E. Lynch). 74% of the basketball players in the NBA are black. In 2014, the NFL consisted of 64% black athletes. In 2015, the pop music charts were dominated by artists of color. In January of 2015, the 114th Congress was reported as the most diverse congress in history with 20% being non-white. Dr. Ben Carson is a celebrated neurosurgeon and he’s black.

You have African Americans in the police force (25%), there are black professors (5%) and black CEO’s (1%). You have black professionals scattered throughout the marketplace. Why are there not more? Could it have anything to do with the 41% that drop out of High School? How about the percentage of unwed mothers who are compelled to forgo higher education in order to raise their baby? Does that not limit the number of minorities who would otherwise be in a position to work in a professional role? According to NAACP.org, based on 2001 statistics, it’s conceivable that today, one of every three black males will be incarcerated. Does that not make a difference, as far as diversity in the workplace?

Of course it does.

But wait.

Is the Judicial System Flawed?

The same source that elaborates on the current trends of the arrest rate for black males also insists that blacks are unfairly treated in the courtroom – that their sentences are often far more severe then their white counterparts. Again, the implication is that the social and economic shortcomings that exist in the black community are a result of a prejudiced infrastructure that is determined to persecute minorities.  But in speaking with a local judge, he made it clear that things in the courtroom are now always as they appear on the surface. “Possession” is viewed differently depending on the drug – recreational drugs versus narcotics. The same thing can be said for dealing. Repeat offenders and those who are frequently appearing before the bench can receive sentences that appear overly harsh without being privy to the defendant’s history. Is it possible that the judge in question is being especially severe? Possibly. But generally speaking, you’ll find that same judge to be hard on everyone and not just minorities.

Of course the fact that you’re having to appear in court at all raises some questions. You wouldn’t be concerned about the disposition of the bench if hadn’t been arrested to begin with. Perhaps your concerns would be laid to rest if you resolved to stay out of trouble.

While that sounds like an obvious solution, the response from those who insist that the black race is often targeted by abusive and racist police is that blacks are frequently arrested for no real reason and when they are arrested, it’s not uncommon for the police to assault them physically.

But here again, in order to assure a truly accurate analysis of the situation, you need to hear from those who are tasked with responding to the calls coming from the dispatcher on the police radio. In speaking with a law enforcement professional with over two decades of service to his credit, he pointed out that those in the squad car are responding to the description given by the victim and not a description they would concoct on their own. When the assailant is described as a black male, approximately 200 pounds and 5’9″, that’s who they’re going to be looking for. It’s not bigotry that determines who’s being questioned, it’s the physical characteristics of the accused that defines the nature of the search.

Imagine a squad car pulling into an area close to the scene of the crime. A man is seen that fits the description given by the victim. The officers approach the man with the mindset that this could be the individual they’re looking for, if for no other reason than his appearance matches the description of the suspect. Should that individual be belligerent in the way he responds to the officers’ questions, he’s not taking a stand against racism, rather he’s making the job of the police officers that much more difficult. The police aren’t there to prosecute a racist agenda, they’re attempting to solve a crime. Should your actions or your attitude qualify you as someone who merits further questioning, prepare to be treated as a suspect. That’s not racism, that’s common sense.

Are the police guilty of missteps? Certainly. But is that the prevailing tone of the entire system? Before you answer that, make a point of asking a black police officer for their input. You’re going to find a perspective that doesn’t reinforce the venom spewed by the activists bent on charging law enforcement with abusive tactics.

Not even close.

Riots in the Streets

Michael Brown, Jr. was a 6’4″, 292 pound, 18 year old that was stopped by Police Officer Darren Wilson on August 9, 2014 after Brown had robbed a nearby convenience store in Ferguson, MO. An altercation ensued where Brown reached into the police car, assaulted Officer Wilson and attempted to wrestle control of Wilson’s firearm away from him. The gun went off resulting in Brown being wounded in the hand, at which point he ran from the scene. Wilson chased after Brown, who at this point is guilty of robbery and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Brown stopped running and started towards Officer Wilson. Wilson, who at this point, having no reason to suspect that Brown has had a change of heart, as far as his resolve to assault an officer of the law, proceeds to shoot Brown. Brown continues moving towards Wilson and when he seemingly reaches for something that could very well be a weapon, Officer Wilson fires the shot that would end Brown’s life.

The uproar that ensued was significant. Here again was yet another instance where a white police officer supposedly killed a black suspect for no real reason. Police Brutality. White Supremacy. The Ugly Specter of Racism.

It would take three weeks for the verdict that would determine whether or not Officer Wilson acted appropriately would be determined. Meanwhile, those who were determined to exploit any question as to whether or not Officer Wilson acted outside the line of duty seized every opportunity to make the death of Michael Brown a purely racial issue.

In speaking with an officer who was a part of the investigation, he was able to shed some light on the verdict that supposedly took three weeks to arrive at. In truth, it took three hours and twenty minutes. Witnesses that had come forward with testimony that called into question Officer Wilson’s conduct were revealed as unreliable and inconsistent (see page 44 of official Department of Justice report). Forensics corroborated Wilson’s testimony and after a detailed and full investigation, Wilson was completely exonerated.

It took three weeks to release the verdict, however, because until the additional riot control gear that had been ordered was available for the Ferguson Police Force, the decision makers felt it prudent to wait until they were sufficiently equipped to stand up to the mob that was poised to riot should the verdict not be to their satisfaction.

What’s interesting is that the “mob” that was lingering in the streets weren’t even residents of Ferguson. Rather, they had been bused in by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for the sole purpose of creating a spectacle. And it was a spectacle thanks to other public personalities such as Attorney General Eric Holder who joined the chorus by characterizing the events in Ferguson that, according to Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, maliciously threw law enforcement officers under the bus in the name of political expediency.

Is this racism? According to Sheriff David Clarke, absolutely not! Rather, it’s a campaign to maintain the illusion that racism exists on a grandiose scale to the point where it can solicit votes, money and power.

flagAnswer These Questions

There’s a video out that shows a young, black man walking on the American flag as part of a demonstration, insisting that the flag is the “new swastika.” He goes on, in the context of a string of foul superlatives, to denounce America as a racist enterprise. His tirade is ludicrous on several levels. First of all, if you’ve ever had the opportunity to visit Auschwitz, you would know for certain that to compare the US with Nazi Germany is as outrageous as it is nonsensical. But as you watch this young man taking selfies as he belligerently steps on the Stars and Stripes, you can’t help but notice that he’s not alone. There are others that condone and endorse his rhetoric and his actions as expressions of a persecuted  ethnic group that is justified in condemning the United States, even to the point of walking on the same symbol that was raised over the rubble of 9/11 and hoisted at the peak of Mt Suribachi at the expense of the lives of several Marines.

Yet another video shows a young, black thug knocking out a white, homeless woman. It was filmed by one of his associates and posted on youtube as though the entire episode was entertaining and even justified due to the way racism is often circulated as the social cancer that drives destitute young minorities to acts of violence. After all, racism causes poverty and poverty causes crime.

Well…
thug

Let’s start with the guy walking on the flag. Answer the following questions:

  • What was your Grade Point Average in High School?
  • Did you have to ask off from work in order to be able to be demonstrate today?
  • When was the last time you did any kind of volunteer work?
  • How did you score on your SAT / ACT?
  • What sort of scholarship programs do you qualify for?
  • What are your professional goals?
  • Have you ever served in the military?

What are you doing in terms of a diligent work ethic, a professional disposition and a selfless determination to realize your dreams? God put you on this planet to make a difference and not just an appearance. What have you done with what He’s given you (Ex 35:30; Eph 2:10)? Who are you working to become and how are you leveraging the opportunities that are yours by default? If your platform has any credibility, then these question will be easily responded to with transcripts, referrals and recommendations that validate the individual cussing and walking across the flag as a responsible person who has indeed been shortchanged.

But, on the other hand…

The Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…(The Declaration of Independence)

Abraham Lincoln

Fundamental to Lincoln’s argument was his conviction that slavery must be dealt with as a moral wrong. It violated the statement in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, and it ran counter to the intentions of the Founding Fathers. The “real issue” in his contest with Douglas, Lincoln insisted, was the issue of right and wrong, and he charged that his opponent was trying to uphold a wrong. (history.org)

Theodore Roosevelt

…the only wise and honorable and Christian thing to do is to treat each black man and each white man strictly on his merits as a man, giving him no more and no less than he shows himself worthy to have. (wikiquote.com)

Branch Rickey

Some day I’m going to have to stand before God, and if He asks me why I didn’t let that [Jackie] Robinson fellow play ball, I don’t think saying ‘because of the color of his skin’ would be a good enough answer. (azquotes.com)

John F. Kennedy

In a campaign very much like this one, one hundred years ago, when the issues were the same [Abraham Lincoln] wrote to a friend, ‘I know there is a God, and I know He hates injustice. I see the storm coming and I know His hand is in it. But if He has a place and a part for me, I belive that I am ready.’ Now, one hundred years later, when the issue is still freedom or slavery, we know there is a God and we know He hates injustice. We see the storm coming, and we know His hand is in it. But if He has a place and a part for me, I believe that we are ready. (Speech of Senator John F. Kennedy, Memorial Auditorium, NY | September 28, 1960)

If the majority of your time has been spent turning in lackluster performances as a student and as an employee. If it’s evident that your focus is more on what you can get by complaining than what you can earn by achieving – then it’s not the system that need to be corrected, rather, it’s your perspective on yourself and the world around you that needs to be adjusted. As Ivy White, a black wife, mother of four and a recent graduate of the Georgia State University Law School said as part of her address at her own graduation ceremony, “The dream is free, but the hustle is sold separately.”

Bottom line:If your desecration of the American flag and your denouncement of the nation it represents as a racist country is to have any credibility, then you have to be prepared to match Ivy’s resolve, the work ethic of Ben Carson and the character of David Clarke with comparable virtues of your own. Otherwise, you’re simply hoping that a volatile sounding complaint will mask the lack of accomplishments and character traits that should be present on the resume as an adult who’s truly interested in succeeding.

Doing the Math

An article in US News and World Report said that, “Business owners also say that some job applicants want to get paid under the table, so they can continue to collect jobless benefits. A recent story by CNN Money highlighted a manufacturing firm in Wisconsin that has started to lock out job applicants it suspects of showing up just so they can say they looked for work—a requirement for anybody receiving jobless benefits. Another business owner, in Illinois, said in the same story that her company needs to hire 45 to 50 new salespeople, but struggles with workers who quit after getting free training, or who try to get fired after a few months of work so they can re-qualify for unemployment insurance. The company has now hired a specialist to help weed out phonies and identify worthwhile applicants.”

If 41% of your demographic are dropping out of High School, if 72% are getting pregnant out of wedlock and if it’s evident that some who are unemployed are manipulating the system in order to continue receiving benefits without having to work, how can it be concluded that the sole reason why minorities are, in many cases, poor is because of racism?

As has been mentioned before, according to the NAACP, 1 in 3 black males will see prison time before the end of their life. Couple that statistic with the fact that 70% of all criminals come from broken homes and the perspective of the police officers cited in this article and you have a compelling reason for why the incarceration rate is what it is  – and it’s not so much about bigotry as much as it is the conspicuous absence of engaged fathers.

When you consider the phrase, “war on minorities,” it’s often coupled with the “war on drugs.” Many insist that the arrest rate is disproportionate despite the usage being the same between whites and blacks. But when you take a closer look at the statistics that pertain to drug usage, the numbers can be misleading if they’re not processed correctly. According to a 2012 research project done by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the percentage of whites using drugs compared to the percentage of blacks using drugs look roughly the same (9.2 for whites, 11.3 for blacks). But upon closer inspection, you realize that when you calculate the real difference, the gap between the two figures is far more dramatic.

To calculate the difference, you don’t merely subtract 9.2 from 11.3. You begin by figuring out what percentage of 9.2 is 2.1 (the difference between the two figures). So, 2.1 divided by 9.2 times 100 equals 22.8 or 23%. Another way to look at is if I’ve got an item that’s usually sold for $5.00 and it’s on sale for $4.00, that’s a 25% difference.

Do you see where all of this is going?

An article by attorney Roger Clegg brings this to light in his article published in the National Review. He elaborates on the statistical realities and concludes by saying that, “the case has not been convincingly made that the war has been motivated and implanted with an eye on race.”

His comment serves as an appropriate commentary on the way poverty and crime are often identified as the byproducts of racism and a system that persecutes minorities. The topic of racism, as far as the way that it’s championed by the liberal press and some of the more vocal activists, insists that the choice to quit High School, to be a teenage, unwed mother and to break the law are not choices as much as they are obligatgory reactions to an infrastructure that’s determined to suppress any and every opportunity to succeed. But when you look at the statistics – when you consider the impartial and limiting realities of the financial and social mathematics brought on by the choices made by the same individuals that insist it’s racism and not their own decision making that’s responsible for their situation – the response from any rational human being with an eye to see and an ear to listen is…

…absolutely not.

Another voice that’s worth including in the conversation is that of Larry Elder, an attorney, a prolific writer and host of his own radio show on 790 KABC in Los Angeles. He was recently interviewed on the Dave Rubin Show and expounds on several statistics that reinforce that “math” that you see above. Take a look:

Social Injustice – The Breakdown of the Family

  • Democrat Party gets 95% of Black Vote because many blacks are convinced that the number one issue facing America today is social injustice
  • Number one issue facing America today is the breakdown of the family. (Barack Obama)
  • A kid without a dad is 5 times more likely to be poor and commit crimes, 9 times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in jail
  • 75% of black males are raised without fathers
  • In 1890, according to census reports, a black child was more likely to be born into an intact family than they would be today. Even during slavery, the chance of a child being born into a home where the biological father and mother were married is greater than it is in the 21st century.
  • In the sixties, Welfare was extended to women who could demonstrate that there was no man in the house. In 1965, 25% of babies born to the black community were born to unwed mothers. Today, that same statistic is 75%. And that damage is not limited to the black community. In 1965, 5% of babies born to the white community were born to a single parent household. Today, it’s 25%. Bottom line: Because of welfare and the government subsidies extended towards females as part of the “war on poverty,” we’ve provided an avenue in which men can abandon their responsibilities and sense of moral duty while simultaneously encouraged women to “marry” the government.
  • Both the Brookings Institution (Liberal Think Tank) and the Heritage Foundation (Conservative Think Tank) both agree that there’s an obvious correlation between the breakdown of the family and every other problem that is traditionally associated with racism (crime, prison sentences, bad schools, increase in Welfare spending)

larryPolice Brutality

  • In 2015, 965 people were shot and killed by policemen. 4% were while cops shooting unarmed blacks
  • In Chicago in 2011, 21 people were shot and killed by cops. In 2015, there were 7
  • In Chicago which is divided up evenly as 33% black, 33% white and 33% Hispanic, 70% of the homicides were black on black. 40 per month, 500 last year and 75% of them are unsolved.
  • Half the homicides in this country are commited by black people (bear in mind, they occupy 13% of the total population). There was a total of 14,000 murders last year. Half of them were committed by black people, 96% of them were black on black.
  • University of Washington did a recent study and discovered that police are more reluctant to pull the trigger when confronted with a black person than a white person. That means that under certain circumstances, a white person is more likely to be shot than a white person.
  • The last 30-40 years, the percentage of blacks who have been killed by cops has decreased by 75%, while the percentage of whites has flat lined.
  • Most of the fatalities in recent months / years (Erik Garner [New York City], Tamir Rice [Cleveland, OH], Michael Brown [Ferguson, MO]) involved the suspect resisting arrest

Violence in Baltimore (Freddy Gray case)

  • City of Baltimore is 45% black
  • City Council – 100% Democrat, the majority is black. The mayor is black, the Attorney General is black, the #1 and #2 Policemen in charge are both black

Education

  • Because of Affirmative Action, a black student with a comparable GPA and SAT score is more likely to get into a college than a white person. If you’re going to argue that college provides the most direct route to the middle class, black have a better chance to succeed than whites.
  • The poorer you are, the more accessible grants and students loans are.

Miscellaneous

  • the #1 cause of death among young white men is car accidents. The #1 cause of death among young black men is homicides – committed by other black men.
  • Rush Limbaugh is never accused of being racist for criticizing Hillary Clinton, but if a black conservative criticizes a black liberal, he is referred to as a racist if not worse
  • blacks typically differ from liberal Democrat schools of thought when it comes to privatizing Social Security, education vouchers, abortion, same sex marriage, etc. The only thing that ties them to the Democrat party is the notion of racism and social injustice.
  • The Democrat party has not won the white vote since 1964. The more successful liberals are in convincing black people that they are victims and Democrat candidates are going to “fix it,” the better chance Democrats have of getting elected.

All of These Men Were White

Louis Farrakhan believes that all white people should die. Jane Elliot says, “If you graduated from High School and you weren’t a racist, you weren’t listening and you should’ve gotten a “F” in Social Studies…We are conditioned to the myth of white supremacy from the moment of our birth, in fact, even before birth.” Emory Professor of Philosophy George Yancy published an editorial in the New York Times on Christmas Eve 2015 where he asked all of white America to “open yourself up; to speak to, to admit to, the racist poison that is inside of you.”

Regardless of how some might want to argue that the Civil War was fought over economic tensions or states’ rights, given the way in which certain states seceded once Abraham Lincoln was elected, it’s obvious that it was the slavery issue that fueled most of what caused the South and the North to clash. It boiled down to how a human being was to be defined; whether by the color of their skin or by the fact that God had created all men equal. This was the same premise upon which the Declaration of Independence was crafted, it was the winning platform that Abraham Lincoln so eloquently articulated that ultimately earned him the Oval Office, it was what compelled Theodore Roosevelt to invite Booker T. Washington to the White House, it’s what inspired Branch Rickey to draft Jackie Robinson and it was the philosophical foundation that moved Kennedy to propose the Civil Rights Bill that would be signed into law by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. All of these men were white.

And as a quick aside, while we’re talking about the Civil War, let’s not forget that there was a Union Army and not just a Confederacy. It’s not uncommon for activists to point to the Civil War and highlight the way in which the South so aggressively championed the institution of slavery, resulting in one more log on the fire of white supremacy and the KKK etc. But the Union casualty list is right around 360,000. That’s over a quarter of a million people, most of which were caucasian, that gave their lives in order to ensure that there could be a Rainbow Coalition, an NAACP and an Ebony Magazine.

Every one of these men recognized the same thing that all Americans must realize when it comes to the way we interact with one another. Racism is wrong. We are not rated any differently in the eyes of God. We’re all in desperate need of grace and we all bear the Fingerprint of our Redeemer in terms of having been created to make a difference. That is our mandate, that is our birthright and that is our responsibility. But to assert racism not as an issue, but as a strategy in order to prevent certain questions from being asked in terms of High School dropout rate, teenage pregnancy, criminal behavior – these are manifestations of a fatherless constituency along with a collective refusal to take personal responsibility for the choices that are being made. This is not the sigh of the segregated. Rather, it is the indignation of the irresponsible.

Vivian_Malone_registeringIn Conclusion

Activists need to stop cloaking their agenda using carefully Christian-esque sounding verbiage. To insinuate that something is flawed in your relationship with Christ unless you’re willing to support the platform of those who at least tacitly approve of any kind of violence done in the name of racism is a gross mishandling of God’s Word. In the absence of a specific chapter and verse, you’re doing nothing other than covering a crop of weeds with some godly sounding mulch. Not only does it not work, but you risk categorizing yourself as someone who’s using the Bible to advance your own agenda rather than God’s and that’s never wise (Acts 9:13-16; 2 Cor 2:17).

Dr. Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Rosa Parks, Vivian Malone Jones – these people are heroes in that they stood up to injustice by honoring the law and demonstrating character that was beyond reproach. There’s was a struggle that was nothing short of substantial given the prejudice and the violence that was directed towards them for no reason other than their ethnicity. They responded with a resolved grace and in so doing revealed their platform as both substantial and credible.

Is that the tenor of today? Are opportunities fewer? Are the voices we’re hearing the articulate and biblically based appeals for equality that resonated in the sixties, or are we hearing shots fired and demands being made by people who, in many cases, are revealed as being victims of their own decision-making more so than a prejudiced system? There is such a thing as “righteous indignation,” but there’s nothing “righteous” about your indignation when your platform is revealed as an intentional effort to disregard those areas where personal responsibility is cast aside.

The greater the indignation, the more intense the violence, the louder the rhetoric – it becomes clear: This is a problem that emanates from a deficiency in role models which translates to a lack of character, ambition, respect and success. Is it tragic? Yes. Is it racism?

Absolutely not!

Ask a Canaanite

baal-worshipThe Conquest of the Promised Land was a series of military campaigns led by Joshua (see Josh 12). The mission was to completely destroy the Canaanites and settle the land that God had promised Abraham in Genesis (see Gen 13:14-17; 15:19-21). That same land, by the way, is the land that the nation of Israel occupies today.

Some process the violence initiated by the Israelites against the inhabitants of Canaan as being similar to the way in which other nations throughout history have determined to overwhelm neighboring countries and expand their borders and influence by force.

But the Conquest of the Promised Land wasn’t a self absorbed determination to divide and conquer. For all intents and purposes, Israel was hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered from the start. They were hardly a threat, let alone a force, to be taken seriously by any of the fortified cities and established armies that comprised the area of Canaan (Numbers 28-33). The reason Israel triumphed was not because of their military might or because of their superior rating in the eyes of God (Dt 9:1-6), rather, it was because the Canaanites had become so decadent and so heinous in the eyes of God. Israel was merely an instrument of Divine Judgement (Dt 9:4).

But who were the Canaanites and what had they done that made them such an irritant in the eyes of God?

Let’s take a look…

Who Were the Canaanites?

When Noah’s voyage came to an end, he left the ark with his three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. From these three boys came all of the nations that are scattered around the earth to this day (Gen 9:19).

Ham was a problem child and his rebellious nature was passed on to his sons, who you see listed in Genesis 10:6: Cush, Mizraim, Put and…Canaan.

In verse 15, you see the sons of Canaan listed. Taken together, these families / tribes comprised the people group collectively referred to as the Canaanites. They were a wide spread group and as they lived and prospered, their territory grew. But as their landholdings increased, so did their decadence and perversion. You see that in Genesis 24:3 where Abraham asks his chief servant to swear that he would not get a wife for his son Isaac among the Canaanites who he could see were degenerating into a life of wickedness. He also knew that however heinous the Canaanites were at the time, their conduct as well as their prospects would only get worse based on the fact that God had already told him that their land would be given to him.

God’s CleanUp Operation

By the time Moses and Joshua began what was actually God’s “clean up” operation in Deuteronomy 2-3, the pagan practices of the Canaanites were in full swing.

The religion of these pagan people were basically a fertility cult. At temple scattered throughout their land, Canaanite worshipers actually participated in lewd, immoral acts with “sacred” prostitutes. Theirs was a depraved form of worship that appealed to the base instincts of man’s animal nature.1

But more than just depravity, part of Baal worship included sacrificing children by burning them alive (2 Chron 28:2-3). In light of this kind of lifestyle and behavior, you can see why God’s anger would be peaking. And that’s why, in some cases, God instructed the Israelites to destroy entire cities and leave nothing alive. Deuteronomy 20:10-15 instructs the Israelites to make an offer of peace to neighboring cities that were not within the explicit borders of the Promised Land. But verses 16-17 says to kill anything that breathes that lives within the walls of those cities that warranted the full wrath of God. That included women and children.

Why would you kill women and children? Do they not merit a kinder and more gentle treatment?

Women and Children…?

In Genesis 15:16, God is talking to Abraham and states how in the fourth generation of his family, his descendants would come back to the land he was living in presently and claim it as their own. There would be a bit of a delay because, “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

Just how sinful many Canaanite religions practices were is now known from archaeological artifacts and from their own epic literature, discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) on the north Syrian coast beginning in 1929…Their “worship” was polytheistic and included child sacrifice, idolatry, religious prostitution and divination. God was patient in judgment, even with the wicked Canaanites.2

A generation, in this instance is 100 years. 400 years later, you see that prophecy coming true in Deuteronomy 2. This is one of the first areas that were conquered by the Israelites as they entered the land of Canaan after 40 years of wandering in the desert. Every town belonging to Sihon, king of the Amorites, is completely destroyed. Matthew Henry, in his commentary, elaborates:

They put all the Amorites to the sword, men, women, and children (v. 33v. 34); this they did as the executioners of God’s wrath; now the measure of the Amorites’ iniquity was full (Gen. 15:16 ), and the longer it was in the filling the sorer was the reckoning at last. This was one of the devoted nations. They died, not as Israel’s enemies, but as sacrifices to divine justice, in the offering of which sacrifices Israel was employed, as a kingdom of priests. The case being therefore extraordinary, it ought not to be drawn into a precedent for military executions, which make no distinction and give no quarter: those will have judgment without mercy that show no mercy. 3

This was not “business as usual.” As has already been pointed out, not every city / people group was put to the sword. But those who had distinguished themselves by wallowing in the kind of decadence that equated to spitting in the face of God over and over again – as Matthew Henry pointed out – it wasn’t a military action that was directed towards the Amorites, it was the wrath of God being prosecuted in a way that resulted in the total destruction of an entire nation.

Again, this was not a template, nor a precedent, but it’s an example of what can, and often does, occur to a nation that doesn’t just turn their back on God, but runs in the opposite direction over a period of centuries and by so doing sinks deeper and deeper into a pit of depravity that ultimately becomes their grave.

Still, Women and Children?

There are scores of commentary and attempts to reconcile the idea of a loving God with genocide. Some want to suggest that the Biblical text is a form of hyperbole – that what we read as a slaughter of innocent women and children is a figure of speech and nothing more.

The question isn’t “How could God be so cruel and destroy an entire nation including women and children?” Rather, the question is, “How could an entire nation collectively say ‘No,’ to a loving God?” And as far as taking the lives of women and children, however difficult that may be from a human standpoint to process, consider this:

1. The Cross

Anytime you’re inclined to think of God as cruel, you have to go back to the cross. With that one event, you have the ultimate exclamation point, as far as God’s unconditional love for all people (Rom 5:8). Is God capable of being a tyrant? The answer is “Absolutely, not!” Just? Yes. Cruel? No.

2. We Belong to Him

As far as human life is concerned, regardless of the age of the person in question, that individual was created by God (Ps 139:13). From that standpoint, we belong to God and our lives are ultimately His to do with as He pleases (Ps 24:1). Rebuking God for the way in which He handles that which belongs to Him falls short of what’s logical and appropriate. And while some are quick to say, “But He has no right to be cold-hearted.” Again, the cross reveals that assertion as having no basis in fact. In addition, God’s essence is holy and completely devoid of anything evil (Job 34:10; Ps 77:3; 1 Jn 1;5; Jas 1:13). So, should He choose to do something that appears harsh, one can rest assured there’s a holy agenda being served (justice, punishment, discipline) as opposed to something sinister.

 3. More Than a Moment

When we see an infant, we see the innocence and helplessness that defines that child at that moment. On the other hand, God sees their entire life laid out before Him. It’s not a life that has never been lived, it’s a known existence from start to finish. If God chooses to bring that person home before they’re born, it could very well be an act of mercy if that child is to grow up and do all kinds of evil. By bringing that child immediately to their eternal dwelling, they’re prevented from condemning themselves as a result of their sin.

As a side note, is it not ironic that many of those who are indignant with God, as far as Him commanding the death of infants and children, have no problem with babies being destroyed in the context of abortion?

4. Don’t Forget Jezebel

While in most cases, it’s unfair to pit a man against a woman, in terms of physical strength, it’s neither wise nor healthy to suggest that a woman cannot pose a very real threat.

Consider Jezebel. She was the wife of King Ahab. In 1 Kings 18, you see her behind a campaign to kill all of the prophets of God in Israel. In the next chapter, after a brilliant display of God’s superiority over the Baal and his prophets that was facilitated through Elijah, Elijah now is running for his life in order to escape the indignation and the wrath of Jezebel (1 Kings 19:3).

She was hideously evil (1 Kings 9:22; 21:25-26) and ruled over Israel through her sons after the death of her husband for a period of 10 years. In the end, she died a very violent and gruesome death (2 Kings 9:30-37) – a destiny that was prescribed in 1 Kings 21:23 as a punishment for the vile acts she committed against God and her subjects.

Jezebel demonstrates that one’s gender doesn’t limit the atrocities one can commit against God. No doubt, the females within the Canaanite  community, given their reverence for Baal, were guilty of similar behaviors and were therefore deserving of the same kind of fate.

In Conclusion

Anytime you’re confronted with a Divine act or behavior that seems out of Character for God, you’re being wise by establishing the cross as your starting point and from there allowing for the fact that there is such a thing as justice and there is such a thing as discipline. Our perspective is limited (Is 55:8) and we’re not capable of seeing the big picture. Given those two dynamics, it’s more than appropriate to trust God even though certain aspects of a situation lack the kind of bottom lines we would prefer.

But regardless of harsh God’s Judgment was against the Canaanites, the fact was they were living a life and revering a standard that taunted the Reality of God. While grace is always available, it is possible to incur the wrath of your Heavenly Father? How?

Ask a Canaanite.

 

1. “Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary”, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1986, p205

2. “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p28-29

3. “Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible”, biblstudytools.com, Deuteronomy 2, accessed July 3, 2016

 

Islam, Syrian Refugees and How to Love Your Enemy

rtx1p7mw“Pure Christianity” is never exercised in the absence of wisdom (Prov 9:10; Jas 1:5). Dressing up whatever policy or conviction you in the guise of “compassion” or “Christian charity” –  if it doesn’t pass the litmus test of  a comprehensive perspective on Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17)  – you’re simply attempting to give your flawed opinions the look of a Biblically based disposition, the result being neither healthy nor wise.

The question on the table is “Does denying Syrian refugees into the US run contrary to the commandment to love your enemies and to be loving and charitable to all people?”

90% of Syria

90% of Syria is Muslim. When you scan the headlines, you find differing stories as to whether or not you can accept these people as legitimate refugees or you need to at least consider the fact that they pose a potential threat given their creed as well as the history of the way terrorists have infiltrated those areas they define as targets. Given the question marks surrounding the true nature and agenda of these people, a vetting process has been established, but, according to some, it’s been diluted to the point of becoming almost non-existent in order to accommodate President Obama’s commitment to welcome 10,000 refugees by September of 2016. Many believe that this is a logical response to a problem that doesn’t really exist, others see it as an irresponsible mindset that could case the country harm.

There are several “bullet points” that emerge in the context of this debate, and while some appear both credible and compelling, there’s a warning represented by the aforementioned statistics thast need to be acknowledged in order to arrive at a conclusion that is taking into consideration all of the facts.

  • Do Muslims represent a real threat?
  • Are the Syrian refugees devoid of any possible terrorist element?
  • What is the appropriate Christian response?

Are Muslims a Threat?

The struggle that’s going on in Syria right now is being described as one of the bloodiest conflicts in the 21st century. What began as an uprising fueled by economic and political unrest has become a struggle that’s drawn according to sectarian lines. In other words, it’s become a religious battle between the Suni’s and the Shiite’s.

The struggle between Suni’s and Shiites goes back to the beginning of Islam as far as who is the true successor to Mohammed. But there are nevertheless some common denominators between the two factions, one being their mutual hatred and resolve to destroy the United States.

Some will argue that this is not the tenor of most Muslims and is therefore illogical and unfair to be hesitant when labeling Muslims in general as being a threat to national security. But here’s the problem:

The moment you put that uniform on – the moment you align yourself with Islamic teachings – you are subscribing to a creed that includes a divine endorsement for murder in the name of Allah. Not all Muslims are radical, but the more orthodox your interpretation of the Quran, the more militant you become. Furthermore, there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. The radicals are estimated to be between 16% and 25% according to most of the intelligence around the world. That means you have between 180 and 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. Just to give you some perspective, the number of people in the US is 320 million. Connect the dots and you have the equivalent to an entire nation determined to see the US cease to exist. That by itself should be enough to give decision makers pause.

moderate_muslimsThe Problem of Abrogation

While the Bill of Rights gives everyone the opportunity to practice their religion without any kind of governmental limitation, the Supreme Court in 1878 appropriately ruled that the practice of one’s religion does not serve as a defense to a criminal indictment. In other words, should your religion be used as a way to justify murder, then your religious beliefs no longer fall beneath the umbrella of the First Amendment. Because of the way in which our nation’s 200 year history has been consistently punctuated with acts of terror prosecuted by individuals who claim a commitment to Allah as being their inspiration, being a Muslim, by default, puts you in a position where your voluntary ties to these acts defines you as a potential threat to the general welfare and not as a mere religious pilgrim.

That may sound harsh and even inaccurate, given the way many Muslims appear to be kind and more than gracious,  and they may very well be. But it’s imperative to realize that those who are “moderate” are viewed by their more orthodox counterparts as “Uncle Tom’s” and not followers of the true faith.  And it’s also important to realize that the Qur’an insists on the destruction of the infidel. It’s not a question of how you interpret the Qur’an, rather it’s your personal disposition as to which passages you embrace and which ones you do not. The contention is that the most recent revelations of Mohamad are the ones that you obey. Should any of those contradict what had been documented in the past, you are to ignore anything that was previously stated and instead obey the newest admonishments.

This anomaly is called “abrogation.” It’s most threatening manifestation is in the context of jihad:

During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad’s life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle.

Chapter 9 of the Qur’an, in English called “Ultimatum,” is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin “in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful.”[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that “Ultimatum” was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad’s life, “Ultimatum” trumps earlier revelations. 1

This is why any Muslim who is “peaceful” is nevertheless conflicted in that they are hard pressed to condemn their more militant counterparts. After all, the terrorists are simply obeying what is in the Quran. For example:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war. (sura 9:5)

Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call “moderate Islam” and “moderate Muslims” is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them. They also see that the division of Islam into “moderate Islam” and “radical Islam” has no basis in Islam—neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality. (“Radical vs Moderate Islam: A Muslim View“)

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. (sura 9:29)

What About Christianity?

Some will argue that Christianity has fueled may of the conflicts that have plagued the human existence, yet the Gospel of Jesus Christ isn’t being categorized as a threat. “Why not?” they ask.

First and foremost, just because you carry a Bible doesn’t make you a believer any more than brandishing a cross on your shield qualifies you as a Christian soldier. That’s not to say that there’s no such thing as a truly “righteous” cause that merits the use of force. But there’s a difference between what’s right from a Biblical standpoint and what’s merely profitable.

The Crusades are often viewed as a Christian enterprise that illustrates how people who are supposedly Christ followers can be just as violent as their Islamic counterparts thus giving the impression there is no distinction between one “religious” group over another.

But the Crusades were not fought for sake of advancing the gospel as much as it was for the sake of protecting the interests of Alexis I, the emperor of Constantinople and promoting the influence of Pope Urban II. The Jews surrendered their home to the Muslims in 638. It wasn’t until 1096 that the first Crusade was initiated. If it was a purely Christian impetus that inspired the Crusades, why did it take over 400 years for any kind of military campaign to be launched? Fact is, the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their territory to include Constantinople. Only then did Alexis I reach out to the Pope who was only too happy to seize the opportunity to extend his authority into what was previously an exclusively Greek Orthodox dynamic. Bottom line: The Crusades were about wealth and power and not the cause of Christ.

That’s not to say that providing aid to Alexis the First would’ve been an inappropriate gesture. But to offer forgiveness of one’s sin in exchange for taking up arms against the Turks…

“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.” (portion of Pope Urban II’s speech at Council of Clermont, 1095)

…is not even remotely biblical let alone a “holy” war.

And as far as the kind of violence the you do see in Scripture, there’s a fundamental difference there as well.

War in the Bible versus Jihad

Dr. Emir Caner grew up as a Muslim and later, along with his brother, converted to Christianity. Part of what makes his story so compelling is that his father was a devout Muslim. According to the Hadith, you are to be put to death if you renounce your faith in Allah. Rather than following the Qur’an to the letter, their father chose instead to disown them and they never saw their father again until he was on their deathbed. He’s currently president of Truett McConnell College in Cleveland, Georgia.

He explains the difference between war from a biblical standpoint and the way it’s promoted in the Qur’an:

…war, in Christian thought has the express purpose of securing peace (see Timothy 2:2) and removing those who oppress and act wickedly (see Romans 13:1-7). But war in Islam is different both in its scope and purpose. The latter half of sura 9:5 commands, “But if they repent and establish worship and pat the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

As a result, Muslim armies must not put down their swords until the time their opposition submits to Islam or Islamic law – that is, until unbelievers either worship or pay a special protection tax and acquiesce to an Islamic political system. For the devout Muslim, war has a divine purpose and a divine outcome – securing the territory in the name of Allah, to whom all must bow.

After the enemy submits, the surrender is considered forever binding. If at any time, years or even centuries after the treaty was accepted, a conquered party breaks it, war is to be waged until such time Islamic law is fully reestablished. The Qur’an decrees,

And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! They have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist (sura 9:12).2

God and Allah

And it’s not just the difference in what prompts war. It comes down to the fundamental difference between God and Allah. Dr. Emir Caner is joined by his brother in the book, “Unveiling Islam.” Together they explain that:

The greatest difference between Jesus Christ as God and Savior and Muhammad as prophet of Allah, comes at this point. Jesus Christ shed His own blood on the cross so that people could come go to God. Muhammad shed other people’s blood so that his constituents could have political power throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Further, since Muhammad is held to be the “excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Final Day” (sura 33:21), we need to look no righter for explanation of violent acts with Islam than at the character of its founder. Was Muhammad a man of peace who shed other people’s blood only as a last resort? When he killed others, were his acts part of war or for personal vengeance? The answers to such questions tarnish the ethical integrity of the Islamic worldview.3

Allah’s heart is set against the infidel (kafir). He has no love for the unbeliever, nor is it the task of the Muslim to “evangelize” the unbelieving world. Allah is to be worshiped, period. Any who will not do so must be defeated, silenced, or expelled. The theme is conquest, not conversion, of the unbelieving world. Allah has called the Muslim to make the name of Allah alone to be worshiped. 4

At the end of the day, Christianity and Islam represent two vastly different paradigms, both in the natures of God and Allah as well as in the way they are to be championed and proliferated. A very short and succinct way of expressing the differences would be to simply reflect on how Allah invites his followers to die for him, whereas God says, “No, I’ll die for you.”

But what about the way in which you are to treat your enemy from a Christian standpoint? Does Christian charity not demand that we as a nation welcome anyone within our borders, regardless of their intent?

Senior Intelligence Community officials assess the greatest international terrorist threats currently facing the United States come from violent extremists inspired by al-Qa‘ida, including its allies and affiliates, who are committed to conducting attacks inside the United States and abroad.

Loving Your Enemy versus Enabling Them

Here’s the thing: There’s a difference between loving your enemy and enabling them.

In 2 Kings 6, the Arameans were at war with Israel and had surrounded the city of Dothan in an effort to capture the prophet Elisha. Elisha prayed that God would strike the army with blindness and God honored Elisha’s request. Elisha then led the army into Samaria, at which point the eyes of the Aramean army were opened. Rather than destroying them, Israel fed them and sent them away. Afterwhich the king of Aram ceased to war with Israel.

But that peace didn’t last. In the very next chapter, the nation of Aram is once again attacking Israel.

The point is, chapter six illustrates how a Christian is to deal with their enemy – with compassion. That isn’t to say that there are no casualties in the kind of warfare prosecuted by believers (2 Kings 18:8). The Arameans were no strangers to Israel. You see them throughout the Old Testament. Indeed, in 2 Samuel 8, King David killed 22,000 of them in a battle where they had tried to defeat Israel by fighting alongside the Zobahites. But war in general is fought either as a last resort to subordinate a wicked ideology and ensure a lasting peace, or it is engaged for the sake of promoting a wicked ideology and advancing a quest for power.

War is never choreographed nor is it scripted. By the time the situation has deteriorated to that point, horrific scenes are commonplace and those who survive that value life will carry with them scars and psychological wounds that they will bear for the rest of their lives. Individuals such as Hitler, however, had no problem sleeping at night because the presence of a breathing Jew –  or any who would offer them sanctuary-  was nothing more than an obstacle to overcome. A Hebrew was not a soul that Christ had died for. They were a social poison that was therefore unworthy of the dignity that every human being would otherwise rate when viewed through the lens of a Christian paradigm. Death and suffering were merely processes by which the Nazi archetype would be established.

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. (Dt 20:10-15 [see also Lev 19:33])

That’s the distinction between war waged as a form of conquest and war waged in the name of justice. In both situations you have an enemy, but in the context of conquest, you have a nameless entity that needs to be eliminated. When the cause is just, on the other hand, the enemy is a human opponent that merits the consideration due a person that God valued enough to redeem. But that doesn’t mean you hesitate to do whatever is required to subdue them should they attack (Num 21:1-3). Nor does it mean that you allow them to keep a sword in their hands as long as they remain a threat (see sidebar [Dt 20:10-11]).

When Israel went to war with neighboring nations, they were instructed to first make an offer of peace. It would be in the context of that offer that Israel’s enemy could demonstrate that they were no longer an enemy, but merely a foreigner that was now entitled to the same rights and privileges of an Israelite. Take for example Uriah the Hittite. The Hittites were among those that Israel fought as part of the conquest of the Promised Land (Dt 20:17). Yet, Uriah is listed among David’s personal bodyguard (2 Sam 23:39). Uriah literally means, “My light is the Lord.” So, here’s an example of someone who’s lineage included a people group that had at one point been at war with Israel, but had since adopted the Israelite faith and proven his worth and integrity to the point where he was now serving in a prestigious, military position.

While we don’t have video footage of the feast the Jews held for their enemies, no doubt the mood of the Arameans was that of a conquered opponent. The reason the gesture resonated the way that it did was because it was deployed from a position of strength.

It’s one thing to impress your enemy with a noble surrender, but when you have the higher ground, the impression you’re making by being compassionate can be even more powerful.

It’s Not a Courtroom, it’s Combat

In warfare, your enemy is not a mere criminal in that their agenda is not that of a common thief or a murderer. Rather, it’s the demise of the ideals that serve as the philosophical foundation upon which your nation is based. That is their target. When contending with an enemy soldier, it’s not a criminal attack that you’re trying, it’s a military attack that you’re combating. Hence, any kindness must be executed in a manner that prevents them for shaking hands with one hand and delivering a lethal blow with the other. It’s only when your foe is having to admit defeat or, at the very least, the very real likelihood of being overwhelmed, that your hospitality compels them to reevaluate their hatred for you and the value system you represent.

It should be noted as well that any pagan foreigner who chose to live among the Israelites was expected to obey the same laws that had been prescribed for the Jews (Num 15:16). The worship of Jehovah was not dictated (Ex 12:48) and the Israelites were commanded not to oppress or mistreat any foreigner (Ex 23:9). But as far as moral and criminal statutes – those laws were expected to be upheld.

In some instances, that might seem like a violation of one’s civil liberties – especially from today’s point of view. But you have to realize that it was the foreigner’s reverence for their pagan deities that served as the basis for their determination to destroy Israel. Committing to a new moral / legal code was not an infringement of their rights as much as it was a necessary pledge of allegiance to the general welfare of the Hebrew nation as opposed to its demise.

In Conclusion

Using Scripture as a template for the way in which the US is to approach the admission of 10,000 Muslims into our cities has to go beyond a hippie-like dismissal of evil based on a solitary Bible verse. Rather, it must be a comprehensive perspective of the Bible which includes the reason you are to love your enemies and the manner in which you are to make that love apparent.

Those who sneer at military action or condemn the use of deadly force forget that the opponent whose sole objective is power process their offer of peace as them simply removing themselves from the battlefield and exchanging the indignity of violence for the certainty of being destroyed. Pacifism is not an application of of the Bible, it’s a distortion of it. Socialism is not a system illustrated by the life of Christ, it’s a humanistic attempt to solve the problem of greed. Loving your enemy is not about making yourself vulnerable to attack as much as it’s a victor’s kindness extended to their foe as an encouragement to change.

Unless it can be determined conclusively that a Syrian refugee is not inclined to embrace those portions of the Qur’an that condemn the infidel to death, you are welcoming into your neighborhood a potential threat. Offering aid and assistance is one thing, handing over the keys to your home is another. That’s not being disobedient to the Word of God, that’s an application of the wisdom contained within it.

 

 

 

1. “Middle East Forum”, “Peace or Jihad: Abrogation in Islam”, David Bukay, 2007, http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam, accessed June 20, 2016)

2. “The Truth About Islam and Jihad”, John Ankerberg and Emir Caner, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009, p19

3. “Unveiling Islam”, Ergun Mehmet Caner, Emir Fethi Caner, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 2002, 2009, p20

4. Ibid, p90

Memorial Day 2016

g-cvr-090217-dover-coffins-3a.grid-6x2[1]Armistice Day was a big event when it first occurred. That was the day the “Armistice” was signed and marked the end of hostilities between those nations engaged in World War I. It was later changed to “Veteran’s Day,” a day to honor all those who had served in the Armed Forces.

Memorial Day, on the other hand, was instituted after the Civil War. It started out as Decoration Day –  a time when an organization of Union veterans resolved to honor the graves of fallen comrades. Over time, like minded Confederate organizations merged with their Northern counterparts and “Memorial Day” became a time when all those who had died in the service of their country were honored with various ceremonies and gestures of appreciation.

The difference between “Veteran’s Day” and “Memorial Day” is that on “Veteran’s Day,” you can walk up to a veteran and say, “Thank you for your service.” On “Memorial Day,” you approach the grave of someone who died in combat and say, “Thank you for dying for me.”

Makes you pause doesn’t it?

I was listening to two gentlemen this morning who were discussing their plans for Memorial Day weekend. One was asking the other if they were going to be relaxing to which they responded, “Probably, although I’m sure something will come up.” The other laughed knowingly – obviously both were burdened with outrageous demands on their time.

But neither of them made any comment in terms of what they might do to honor those who had died to ensure they had the opportunity to relax this weekend.

I’m going to make a point of taking my family to a nearby Federal Cemetery and honor some graves of those who are missed by their families, who willingly gave their lives in order to ensure I could vote in this upcoming election – who sacrificed being able to marry and raise a family so I could do so in the context of a paradigm not characterized by tyranny and oppression.

Sometimes words like “freedom” and “the pursuit of happiness” come across as especially patriotic and to talk about taking time out of one’s day to decorate the grave of a fallen solider is to contemplate an extraordinary display of noble citizenship.

No.

By decorating the headstone of a soldier who never came home, I’m not really doing anything other than what is an appropriate response to someone who is a true patriot – whose death was an extraordinary display of selfless and noble citizenship.

Don’t just have a happy Memorial Day. Make it a real Memorial Day by honoring those who died to makes sure it could be happy.

American Concrete

concrete

When it comes to the topic of our nation’s Christian heritage, you have two main schools of thought:

  • The liberal mindset that insists our forefathers viewed religion as something to be negotiated as an administrative duty
  • The Conservative Christian platform that maintains an aggressive acknowledgement and pursuit of God’s Assistance characterized the collective perspective of the founding fathers

Much of the controversy stems from a ruling given by the Supreme Court in 1947 and the way they interpreted a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802. They declared that Jefferson’s usage of the term “the separation of church and state” constituted “the authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.1 Since then, that ruling has become the standard by which all public expressions of religious convictions have been measured, leading to an ever increasing limitation being put on the acknowledgement of God in governmental agencies as well as an ever lengthening shadow of doubt being cast on our nation’s religious heritage.

The debate is, at times, passionate and you’ve got buffoons on both sides of the aisle. The venom and the inaccuracies can culminate in a spectacle that can make it difficult to know which argument is correct.  But there is a bottom line that transcends the way in which a solitary statement can be potentially dissected to the point where its meaning becomes illusive. That bottom line is to consider, not only the comment that was made, but also:

  • the context of that comment
  • the character of the person speaking
  • the cultural backdrop that made what that person said both relevant and influential

In other words, rather than just scrutinizing what was said, look at also why it was said, to whom was the person speaking and who was it that made the comment. At that point, you’ve got a full color, three dimensional rendering of what was stated as opposed to an intentionally cropped, black and white snapshot.

Using that kind of approach, let’s take a look at Thomas Jefferson and his exchange with the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson’s Resume

Seven day clock 670

Jefferson’s mental capacity and creativity went beyond mere academics. At the front door of his home, there’s a seven day clock that he designed. It’s counterweights hang on either side of the front entrance and extend through the floor. The height at which the counterweights hang indicate the days of the week that are written on the wall and beneath the floor. Monticello as a whole – the layout of the grounds and the structural design – all served as a testament to the creative intelligence and the intellectual ingenuity of their architect.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy was speaking at a dinner in the White House honoring all of the living recipients of the Nobel Prize. He said, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has every been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”2

Thomas Jefferson was extraordinary. Prior to earning his license as a lawyer, he had earned his college degree from the College of William and Mary, having studied Mathematics, Philosophy, Metaphysics as well as French and Greek. It was there that he would also be introduced to the writings of John Locke, Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon – great thinkers that would shape his approach to politics and America’s quest for liberty.

After writing the Declaration of Independence, he returned to Virginia where he served in the Virginia State Legislature, eventually ascending to the position of Governor. His role in crafting the new state government was significant. For nearly three years he assisted in the construction of the state constitution. His most notable contribution was the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” – an accomplishment he had immortalized on his tombstone.

Jefferson was also very familiar with the Bible and the teachings of Christ. During his presidential years, he wrote a 46 page work entitled “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines as Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”3 Moreover, he understood the necessary role the Christian doctrine played in the formulation of a government based on the Absolutes of Scripture as opposed to the machinations of men, be they manifested in the context of royalty or enlightened reason. While he was convinced that the established clergy of the day were corrupt and the imposition of any one creed by a legislature was fundamentally flawed, it was the transcendent dynamic of the Christian doctrine upon which he founded his philosophical approach to freedom and sound government.

Jefferson’s Starting Point

It’s here where the liberal and conservative perspectives diverge. The liberal platform maintains that Jefferson’s usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was intended to purge any mention of God in an official context, be it the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of any Christian symbols during the Holidays , prayer in schools and the list goes on and on. His previously stated comments pertaining to the Christian component of our nation’s government , the culture of the time and the audience he was addressing are all either diluted or dismissed in order to craft a liberal platform that presents America as a purely secular enterprise. Furthermore, there’s a philosophical starting point that Jefferson uses in the two documents he requested be immortalized on his tombstone that gets glossed over as though it has no real bearing on the issue. But if this is the cornerstone of his thought processes pertaining to religious freedom and liberty in general, this is a crucial piece of evidence that needs to be admitted as part of the conversation. Take a look…

In both documents, he bases one’s right to liberty on the fact that God created man to be free.

The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…(emphasis added)

The opening statement of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom:

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance
to the state.

Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state. Remove the philosophical foundation of Scripture from Jefferson’s approach to liberty and you reduce the essence of our nation to a complaint rather than an Absolute. Furthermore, by insisting that there be no acknowledgement of the biblical paradigm that supports the ideological structure of our government, we invite the decay and corruption that inevitably accompanies the fallibility of a purely human enterprise.

Jefferson’s faith was unorthodox and his determination to avoid any appearance of officially sanctioning a particular denomination was nothing short of aggressive, but to twist his usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” into a quasi-legislative impetus to remove prayer from schools and strike the “one nation under God” phrase from the pledge of Allegiance, is to ignore the obvious cornerstone of Jefferson’s thought process. In addition, should the liberal perspective be embraced, you make Jefferson himself the “chief of sinners” in that he violates his own supposed conviction by invoking a overtly Christian dynamic in the very documents that define his perspective on the freedoms we enjoy.

Jefferson’s Audience

In addition to considering the background of Thomas Jefferson and his philosophical starting point when it came to the issue of religious liberty, one also needs to look at the society that Jefferson was addressing in the letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence, in addition to proclaiming America’s resolve to separate itself from the authority of the crown, it also created a mandate for all states to create their own constitution. While many of the early settlers had left Old World in order to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, not everyone was dissatisfied with the Anglican Church. As a result, while the fabric of America’s religious culture was predominantly Protestant, it was nevertheless interwoven with a number of different denominations. The Church of England was predominant in Virginia, in New England you had a blend of Congregationalists (an evolution of the original Puritans), Presbyterians and Quakers with a small percentage of other denominations scattered throughout the Northeast.

It’s imperative to realize that between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75-80 percent of the population attended churches which were being built at a headlong pace. When Thomas Jefferson became Vice President in 1797, the Second Great Awakening began and an abundance of revival meetings occurred throughout the country in a sustained pattern that would continue to the Civil War. So common was this anomaly that it was referred to as “the great absorbing theme of American life.”4 And part of what made the evangelical movement so potent was the way in which it was perceived as the best way in which to promote and preserve republican government.

Nineteenth century evangelical literature abounds with statements that could have been inspired by the religion section of Washington’s Farewell Address or copied from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780: “the religion of the Gospel is the rock on which civil liberty rests”; “civil liberty has ever been in proportion to the prevalence of pure Christianity”; “genuine Religion with all its moral influences, and all its awful sanctions, is the chief, if not the only security we can have, for the preservation of our free institutions”; “the doctrines of Protestant Christianity are the sure, nay, the only bulwark of civil freedom”; “Christianity is the conservator of all that is dear in civil liberty and humoses_1man happiness.”5

But while the message of preachers was being embraced as something that promoted the nation’s approach to liberty as well as the key to one’s eternal salvation, it didn’t resolve the tension that existed in many states, as far as the way certain state constitutions made religion – specifically the patronization of a specific denomination – compulsory. In 1724, in the state of Connecticut, if you were a member of the Anglican church, you were required by law to pay a percentage of your income to the local Congregationalist church under penalty of imprisonment or seizure of goods.6 Up until 1818, the Congregational church was the established church of Connecticut which translated to a number of legislative tactics deployed for the expressed purpose of discouraging and harassing members of any “dissenting” denomination.7 In the year 1801, the Baptist churches that comprised the Danbury Baptist Association resolved to approach the newly elected President for the sake of soliciting from him a statement that would reinforce and further promote the idea of disestablishment – the elimination of government-sanctioned discrimination against religious minorities.8

Jefferson’s reply would be reprinted in publications across the nation.9 The effect of Jefferson’s letter is subjective in that it would be several years before Connecticut’s religious tone would be altered to the point where its constitution would be stripped of any legislative power to promote one denomination over another. Other states would follow suit over time, but the bottom lines is that in the early years of the nineteenth century, “religious freedom” wasn’t so much about discouraging public religious expressions as much as it was about eliminating that dynamic where you were legally obligated to attend and support a specific church.

It’s wise to pause for a moment and ponder the mindset of those who were reading Jefferson’s letter in 1802. While our currency today states that we trust in God, statistics reveal a collective disposition that is largely cynical of traditional Christianity.10 In a 2013 article written by Steve McSwain entitled “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore,” he cites some compelling stats that proclaim upwards of 80% of Americans are finding “more fulfilling things to do on the weekend” besides going to church.11 That’s not to say that some of these same people aren’t listed on the membership role of a local fellowship, but their commitment to God is casual at best. This is an important dynamic to consider in that, to a nineteenth century citizen of the US, given the religious tenor of the nation as a whole, removing any and all references to Christ from the public arena was not something to be desired let alone considered. Christianity was regarded as both the foundation as well as the fuel for a moral society which, in turn, promoted a healthy republic. Jefferson demonstrated that himself in his personal life as well as his public policies.12 “The Christian religion,” he wrote in 1801, when “brought to the original and simplicity of its benevolent institutor (Jesus Christ), is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty.”13 This is not the sentiment of a man determined to remove faith based gestures from the public arena. And while it wasn’t in Jefferson’s mind to eliminate the concrete of Christianity from America’s foundation, neither was it the ambition of the people he governed or the people who governed alongside him.

Jefferson’s Peers

To state that Jefferson’s was not the only signature on the Declaration of Independence nor was he the only voice that shaped our Constitution (Jefferson was in France when our Constitution was written, but he was nevertheless influential through his correspondence) is to rehearse the obvious. Yet, when you consider the weight given to a single phrase made in a letter that, while politically strategic, had no legislative power, it’s difficult not to feel as though Jefferson’s correspondence with the Danbury Baptists is the only piece of evidence being admitted into the courtroom.

When you consider the other personalities and their respective statements along with their voting record, the resulting dynamic isn’t so much something that isolates Jefferson’s statement to the Danbury Association as unique as much as it brings into focus what he truly intended.

The First Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention were the legislative bodies that crafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution respectively. There were 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence and 55 delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787. With no more than five exceptions, the members of the Constitutional Convention were all orthodox members of an established Christian denomination.14  The signatures on the Declaration of Independence boasts a similar enumeration of men who vocally volunteered their commitment to Christ with little hesitation.

Following the death of Richard Henry Lee (President of the Continental Congress and the man who officially introduced in Congress the call for America’s independence), his papers and correspondence, including numerous original handwritten letters from patriots (e.g., roosevelt_msgGeorge Washington, Benjamin Rush, John Dickinson, etc.), were passed on to his grandson who compiled those documents into a two-volume work published in 1825. After having studied those personal letters, the grandson described the great body of men who founded the nation in these words:

“The wise and great men of those days were not ashamed publicly to confess the name of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! In behalf of the people, as their representatives and rulers, they acknowledged the sublime doctrine of his mediation.”15

The reason the American experiment succeeded is because it was based on the Absolutes in Scripture that pertained to the way in which man was created to think and live as a free enterprise. Political theory and personal preferences can be debated to the point where legislative conclusions are determined more so by charisma and compelling rhetoric than the substance of the truths being considered. Our Founding Fathers knew that and for that reason chose to bring their collective pursuit of liberty beneath the umbrella of Biblical Truth. Within their ranks you had different degrees of orthodoxy as well as a variety of individual perspectives on issues such as slavery and those that were fit for positions of political leadership. But they all believed that man was “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable human rights” and it was that consensus that allowed them the opportunity to come together as a unified legislative body and proclaim the freedom of those they represented to King George and to the world.

In Conclusion

Pop Quiz…

Question #1: How often from June 12, 1775 till August 3rd, 1784 did Congress proclaim a National Day of either Fasting or Thanksgiving?

Answer: 18 times. Twice a year – once in March and once in October.16woodrow_wilson_msg

Question #2: The following statement is inscribed on the Liberty Bell: “Proclaim Liberty thro’ all the Land to all the Inhabitants thereof.” What text is that taken from?

Answer: Leviticus 25:10

Question #3: What President attended church services every Sunday during his administration, approved the use of the War Office as well as the Office of the Treasury for religious services and also approved the use of the Marine Band to provide instrumental accompaniment for the religious services going on within those government facilities?

Answer: Thomas Jefferson17

Question #4: Who, more than any other single person, is pictured in various locations throughout Capitol Hill?

Answer: Moses18

Question #5: Above the figure that represents Science in the Library of Congress, there is an inscription. What is that inscription?

Answer: Psalm 19:1 (The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork [Psalm 19:1])

Question #6: Who stated the following: “… it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” a) Billy Graham b) George Washington c) George W. Bush d) Charles Spurgeon

Answer: George Washington (proclamation October 3, 1789)

fdrQuestion #7: It was on April 22, 1864 that Congress resolved to institute the phrase, “In God We Trust” as our national motto. Where did they get that phrase from?

Answer: The third verse of our national anthem19:

Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”

The “separation of church and state” phrase can not be accurately utilized as a legal foundation upon which to build legislative mandates to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace. When one pauses long enough to objectively evaluate the whole of Jefferson’s political regard for Christianity, the collective disposition towards religion that belonged to his peer group and the esteem for Christ that characterized the people he governed, to arrive at such a conclusion is nothing less than an irresponsible interpretation of the facts.

"The Light of Truth" painting depicting truth slaying the dragon of ignorance. Four sets of cherubs are featured featuring the four elements of sound law: the square, the plumb, the level and the Bible.

“The Light of Truth” painting depicting truth slaying the dragon of ignorance. Four sets of cherubs are featured featuring the four elements of sound law: the square, the plumb, the level and the Bible.

Yet, regardless of substantive the argument may be – that the 1947 interpretation of Jefferson’s phrase was altogether wrong – there are other forces at play that make this debate more than just an intellectual joust.

The fact that no one balked when Washington so vigorously asserted a Christian dynamic in his farewell address or no one objected to Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson crafting the preface to the Bibles that were distributed to soldiers being deployed to Europe during WWI is because the religious tenor of nation as a whole was far more healthy.

The Light of Truth is a painting that’s featured on the ceiling of the Members of Congress Reading Room in the Jefferson building which was opened in 1897. The artist, Carl Gutherz, pictures four sets of cherubs to represent four tools that are needed to fashion law that is accurate and sound: the plumb, the square, the level and the Bible. The governmental patrons that commissioned the work of Gutherz were no more concerned about his art constituting a violation of the Establishment Cause then were the members of congress who took the time to read the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as they were reprinted on the inside cover of those Bibles that were distributed to servicemen during World War II. Again, America in the 1940’s is revealed as being a nation that was collectively embracing the Truth of God, rather than dismissing it as antiquated and limiting.

The fundamental essence of our corporate perspective on the First Amendment is defined by our national regard for Christ. It’s not a legal discussion only as much as it’s a reflection of who we are spiritually.

If we are to thrive and not just endure as a nation, it’s not a debate that needs to be won as much as it’s a revival that needs to occur. Traditionally, it’s only in times of crisis when our collective knees bow in worship and the indignation of those who want to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace is processed as an obstacle to the common good rather than a catalyst. If we are to enjoy the advantages that go along with being reverent without having to be alerted to our spiritual lethargy by something dramatic, then it’s only common sense to focus on what’s True and labor to influence those on the peripheral in that direction.

Again, it’s not our history that needs to be revisited, it’s our God that needs to be lifted up (Jn 12:32). Only then do our backgrounds and varying convictions blend together in a way that is Truly strong and enduring. Only then does our spiritual heritage come into focus in a way that is not tainted by a worldly desire to distance ourselves from the Author of our freedoms. Only then is our foundation set in the concrete that is truly American as opposed to the shifting sands of cultural whims and academic trends.

1. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p92
2. “John F. Kennedy: Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Peace Winners of the Western Hemisphere”, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8623, accessed November 2, 2015
3. “Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power”, John Meacham, Random House, New York, NY, 2012, p471
4. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p99
5. Ibid, p109
6. “Connecticut in Transition, 1775-1818”, Richard Joseph Purcell, American Historical Association, 1918, p47
7. Among the laws that the Congregational Church used to make life difficult for dissenters was a “certificate law,” that compelled you to verify your church attendance and the regularity of your tithe via a certificate. Obtaining this certificate could be challenging in that, at one point during the life of this law, the certificate had to be signed by two civil officers or a justice of the peace. Since many of the the civil officers in place were Congregationalists, getting their signature was not accomplished without having to endure a significant amount of harassment and discouragement. For more reading on this subject, refer to “The Connecticut State Constitution”, Wesley W. Horton, Oxford University Press, 2012, p10
8. In an October 7, 1801, letter to then-president Jefferson, the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists expressed concerns that the Congregationalist-dominated establishment / government in Connecticut might successfully stifle dissenting sects – theirs in particular. The letter carried the Danbury Baptists’ plea for Jefferson’s assistance, or at least the lending of Jefferson’s presidential stature, to thwart establishment-driven, government-sanctioned discrimination against religious minorities. “Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court: How the Court Flunked History”, Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, Louisiana, 2008, p176
9. “Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State”, New York University Press, NY, 2002, p47 (https://play.google.com/books/reader?printsec=frontcover&output=reader&id=aSg20UE2DHgC&pg=GBS.PT42.w.1.0.45.0.1, accessed Nov 17, 2015)
10. Twenty-eight percent of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally. This is somewhat below the 38% to 40% seen in the late 1970s, and near the all-time low of 27% reached in 2001 and 2009. “Gallup”, “Three in Four Still See the Bible as the Word of God”, http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx, accessed November 7, 2015
11. “Huffington Post”, “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore”, Steve McSwain, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/why-nobody-wants-to-go-to_b_4086016.html, accessed November 7, 2015
12. Jefferson regularly attended church services in the hall of the House of Representatives. In addition, he allowed church services to be held in several federal buildings throughout the capitol on Sundays. Dr. James Hutson, in his book “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” states “It is no exaggeration to say that, on Sundays in Washington during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the state became the church.” “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p91
13. Ibid, p84
14. “Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution”, M.E. Bradford, 1994, University Press of Kansas, p xvi (http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Fathers-Framers-Constitution-Revised/dp/0700606572/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449433424&sr=1-1#reader_0700606572) see also http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qtable.htm)
15. “Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution & Religion”, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, Aldedo, TX, 2010, 152
16. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p53
17. Ibid, p91
18. “One Nation Under God”, Eugene F. Hemrick, Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Indiana, 2001, p49
19. “A Nation Under God? The ACLU and Religion in American Politics”, Thomas L. Kranawitter, David C. Palm, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Oxford, UK, 2006, p39

Sanctified Violence

Alvin_Cullum_York_large

In the Old Testament, you’ve got men of renown – warrior kings and fighting prophets that trusted God and defeated their enemies with the Power and Perspective He provided.

Battlefield prowess was commended, an individual’s skill with a weapon was applauded. As a young man hearing these stories, you couldn’t help but be inspired by these real life champions and their accomplishments. You wanted be like them and be able to defeat your Goliath and stare down the lions in your world.

In the New Testament, you’ve got something quite different. Your principal characters are blue collar workers who quit their jobs to become full time missionaries – most of whom die a martyr’s death, presumably alone and penniless when they meet their end.

Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords doesn’t lead a military attack. He submits Himself to a very public and painful execution. And while the significance of His having defeated the power of sin and death can’t be overstated, it can be confusing for an individual who’s trying to understand the way in which the Bible would have a man overcome his enemy. Does he use a sling and a sword or a kind word and a hot meal? Does he defeat his enemy with the Strength that God provides or does he love his enemy and turn the other cheek?

The short answer is: Both.

A godly man, at the very least, is a diligent student of Scripture and studies the Bible as a whole, recognizing that all Scripture is god-breathed (2 Tim 2:15). To insist that the New Testament condemns violence of any sort or that the Old Testament is a collection of battlefield sins that God merely tolerated rather than acts of holy heroism that He empowered, is to read into the text dynamics and personal preferences that are simply not there.

This essay was written as way to demonstrate the fact that there is such a thing as “sanctified violence” and this is a part of one’s masculinity that can be embraced as both holy and righteous when it’s being deployed in a manner that promotes and protects His Truth.

I) Introduction

Alvin York was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism during the battle during the battle of Chatel-Chehery on October 8, 1918. Initially he hesitated when he received word that he was being drafted into the Army due to his belief that Christians should abstain from warfare and violence.

Thankfully, he was convinced otherwise and his efforts at Chatel-Chehery saved the lives of the seven men he led in the engagement as well a the Germans he took prisoner.

His struggle with the Scriptures pertaining to violence bring up an interesting question: Does the Bible command that we are not to ever take up arms against our enemies? Does Scipture say that we are to never fight against those who would do us harm?

Passionate interpretations abound, but those who would insist on a pacifist disposition often leave out the way in which God obviously endorsed and empowered the violence done by the Israelites in the context of various military operations.

This essay seeks to examine the whole of Scripture in an effort to determine what God’s take is on the use of force, not only for the nation contemplating military action, but also for the individual wrestling with the idea of using physical force to stop his opponent.

II) Scripture as a Whole

In Matthew 26:47-68 when Jesus said that those who live by the sword, die by the sword, it’s important to take into consideration Scripture in its entirety and not only bits and pieces to ensure a proper interpretation.

A) God Doesn’t’ Change His Mind

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Num 23:19)

God does not change. Some read the New Testament and insist that God is against any kind of violence and they cite Scriptures like Matthew 26:52-54 as evidence that we are to never take up arms to defend ourselves or to champion that which is right.

But there are other Scriptures that point very definitively to God’s endorsement of violence when it is He who is wielding the sword through the capable hands of a godly warrior. And those scenarios must be considered along with verses such as Matthew 26:52-24 in order to properly understand God’s Perspective and direction.

For example:

B) Old Testament Examples of God’s Endorsement of Violence

The Conquest of the Promised Land

20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Josh 6:20-21)

Ai

1 Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.” (Josh 8:1-2)

24When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua. (Josh 8:24-27)

Five Amorite Kings

For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:20)

List of Defeated Kings

Joshua 12 lists all of those kings who were defeated by the Israelites. These victories were accomplished as a result of combat and not diplomacy.

In Psalm 44:3, the Psalmist praises God for His having worked through the hands of the Israelites to secure their military victories…

It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did their arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them. (Psalm 44:3)

You see the same kind of sentiment in Psalm 18…

He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet. (Psalm 18:34, 39)

It is God’s Strength and Spirit that is credited for the military victories enjoyed by the Israelites.

In addition to the conquest of the Promised Land, you have other examples such as:

Building the Wall

Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears and bows. (Neh 4:13)

Skilled With a Sling

Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred chosen men who were left-handed, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair and not miss. (Judges 20:16)

Combat Training

These are the nations the LORD left in order to test Israel, since none of these Israelites had fought in any of the wars with Canaan. 2This was to teach the future generations of the Israelites [how to fight in] battle, especially those who had not fought before. (Judges 3:1-2)

David’s defense of the Israelites at Keilah

1When David was told, “Look, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are looting the threshing floors,” 2 he inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” The LORD answered him, “Go, attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” (1 Sam 23:1-2)

Saul commanded by God to attack the Amalekites>

1Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ (1 Sam 15:1-3)

The fact of the matter is, “violence” is like fire. It can be used to cook your food, or it can burn your house down. Violence is defined as either heroism or criminal activity depending on the motive.

C) The New Testament – A Different Dynamic

In the New Testament, you have a different dynamic. Jesus did not come to conquer the Roman government; rather He came to conquer the power of sin. Given the nature of His mission, “violence” was not going to be needed. That does not mean that the kind of violence that God supported and empowered in the Old Testament is now no longer necessary or noble. The fact of the matter is, just like the Character of God didn’t change, neither did the need for “sanctified” violence.

When Jesus told the disciples to put their swords away in Matthew 26:52-24, He was:

  • Ensuring that prophecy would be fulfilled and that His voluntary death and miraculous resurrection would be allowed to proceed.
  • Protecting them. Two swords between 11 apostles was no match for a band of armed soldiers.
  • Setting a precedent. Christianity is to be communicated with gentleness and respect and not at the tip of a sword. He was not issuing a new command to abstain from any kind of violence.

In the New Testament, Christ’s Mission, as has been stated before, was to reconcile man to God and in that vein, would not require or use violence to get the job done.

1) You’re Going to Need a Sword

But while Jesus would not use force to accomplish His Mandate, as God He cannot be anything other than consistent in all things, which includes His previously stated disposition towards sanctified violence. That disposition is revealed in the Old Testament in the context of the various battles that God won through the Israelites. In Luke, you can see it implied when He encourages His disciples to get a sword. He goes as far as to say that if they don’t, have one, to sell their cloak and go buy one.

36-37He said, “This is different. Get ready for trouble. Look to what you’ll need; there are difficult times ahead. Pawn your coat and get a sword. What was written in Scripture, ‘He was lumped in with the criminals,’ gets its final meaning in me. Everything written about me is now coming to a conclusion.” (Luke 22:36-37 [MSG])

The NIV Text Note reads:

buy one An extreme figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They could need defense and protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11) as the one who “bears the sword” (Rom 13:4 )

There are several schools of thought reinforced with compelling sounding commentaries that insist that God is a Pacifist and that Jesus was a nice guy who would never think of picking up a sword.

The Intervarsity Press has this commentary on the passage in Luke where Jesus refers to swords:

They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves. (Lu 22:39-46)

But Jesus said to sell your cloak and go buy a sword if you didn’t have one. He’s referring to a weapon – something tangible that can be purchased. The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, is not “bought,” as much as it is read and obeyed. The context of Christ’s Words do not allow for an interpretation other than His saying that the disciples would need weapons.

2) Turn the Other Cheek

Another common argument against the use of force would be the way in which Christ’s directions to “turn the other cheek” are interpreted to mean that you respond to an attack by simply giving your attacker yet another opportunity to harm you, perhaps even destroy you.

You have the passage in Matthew…

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matt 5:39)

…and in Luke:

27“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31)

Both passages begin by establishing the context of Jesus’ words by referring to the statute in the law of Moses where the punishment was to fit the crime. Centuries later, additional stipulations had been added making it seemingly correct to counter any indignity or offense to be countered with something in kind.

In many ways, Jesus is saying to take the high road. Should someone offend you or insult you, He’s saying to get over it. However, He is not saying to not defend yourself or to never fight. In this passage, He’s referring to an assault on your dignity and not an attack on your person. A slap on the cheek was considered an insult, not a physical attack. Consider Lamentations 3:30:

30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace. (Lam 3:30 [see also 1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6])

The commentary provided by the InterVarsity Press reinforces the point of a slap in the face was considered an indignity, not an assault:

As in much of Jesus’ teaching, pressing his illustration the wrong way may obscure his point. In fact, this would read Scripture the very way he was warning against: if someone hits us in the nose, or has already struck us on both cheeks, are we finally free to hit back? Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation, not so we will explore the limits of his example (see Tannehill 1975:73). A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity (Lam 3:30; Jeremias 1963:28 and 1971:239). God’s prophets sometimes suffered such ill-treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6). Yet though this was more an affront to honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations (Pritchard 1955:163, 175; see also Gaius Inst. 3.220). (“Avoid Retribution and Resistance”, IVP Commentary, accessed April, 2 2009)

The bottom line is that this passage has Jesus not changing the Law or issuing a new Divine Perspective on violence, rather He was repairing the damage done that had been done to the Law. “An eye for an eye” had been perverted into something beyond ensuring that the punishment fit the crime, now it was being used to justify getting even, however insignificant the infraction may be.

Again, the context this passage, both culturally and theologically, is dealing with attacks on one’s character and pride, not physical abuses.

Two things Christ teaches us here:1. We must not be revengeful (v. 39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; —the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom. 13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Prov. 20:22; 24:29; 25:21, 22; Rom. 12:7. (Matthew Henry)

So while turning the other cheek is very much a part of the Christian approach to confrontation, it is not to be confused with the notion that God frowns on defending yourself.

3) Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You

The first part of the Matthew and Luke passages talk about treating your enemy with love and compassion. The Message offers a great paraphrase of the Matthew text:

43-47“You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. 48“In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.” (Matt 5:43-48)

Some will walk away from this passage and take it to mean that you are to never defend yourself or to never take up arms against a warring nation. Again, it’s crucial to consider Scripture as a whole and dispatch a perspective that is comprehensive as opposed to exclusive when attempting to mine the meaning of Christ’s words.

First off, this isn’t the first time God has admonished His people to treat their enemies with kindness and consideration.

“If you come across your enemy’s stray ox or donkey, you must return it to him. (Ex 23:4)

Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. (Dt 23:7)

But while God has said, for example, not to abhor an Edomite, in 1 Chronicles you have David triumphing over 18,000 Edomites:

12 Abishai son of Zeruiah struck down eighteen thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt. 13 He put garrisons in Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David. The LORD gave David victory everywhere he went. (1 Chron 18:12-13)

And while God tells the Israelites not to abhor an Egyptian, 2 Samuel relays the exploits of Benaiah:

20 Benaiah son of Jehoiada was a valiant fighter from Kabzeel, who performed great exploits. He struck down two of Moab’s best men. He also went down into a pit on a snowy day and killed a lion. 21 And he struck down a huge Egyptian. Although the Egyptian had a spear in his hand, Benaiah went against him with a club. He snatched the spear from the Egyptian’s hand and killed him with his own spear. 22 Such were the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he too was as famous as the three mighty men. (2 Sam 23:20-22)

Benaiah (pronounced bee –NIGH –uh) would be distinctive, not only in his military prowess, but also in the way he supported Solomon’s succession to the throne (1 Kings 1-2) and his ultimately replacing Joab as commander of Israel’s armies (1 Kings 2:35).

As has been mentioned before, God works through the swords and shields of his people to do his bidding in the context of sanctified violence. And just like turning the other cheek doesn’t mean that we are allow an intruder to harm our family, loving your enemy and blessing those who persecute you does not negate the appropriate use of force when your enemy is engaged in something that goes beyond insulting rhetoric or offensive gestures.

The question then is, “How do you profess to treat your enemy as a ‘child of God’ when you’re actively engaged in killing him?” The same question could be raised in the context of capital punishment: How is mercy being manifested in the execution of a criminal?

The answer lies in two main ideas:

  • Remembering that your enemy is a child of God
  • You treat your enemy humanely. Since we are all made in God’s image, it is then possible to find something good in everyone. That’s at least some of what lies behind God’s command to not abhor an Edomite or an Egyptian. In the instance of the Egyptians, they were the host country of the Israelites for centuries. In the case of the Edomites, they were related (Edom was Esau, brother the Jacob).

However heinous your enemy may be, they are nevertheless a “creation” of God and are therefore entitled to being handled as such. Matthew Henry:

Note, it is the great duty of Christians to love their enemies; we cannot have complacency in one that is openly wicked and profane, nor put a confidence in one that we know to be deceitful; nor are we to love all alike; but we must pay respect to the human nature, and so far honour all men: we must take notice, with pleasure, of that even in our enemies which is amiable and commendable; ingenuousness, good temper, learning, and moral virtue, kindness to others, profession of religion, etc., and love that, though they are our enemies. (commentary on Matthew 5)

As a child of God, a person is deserving of humane treatment. However compelling the temptation may be to make your adversary suffer, you don’t see any trace of Israel exacting tortuous tactics on their enemy, and that is the template that we must follow.

Bear in mind, however, that once an enemy had proved themselves to be worthy of death, rarely did you see that enemy spared. While you don’t see Israel ever torturing their enemy, Israel nevertheless decimated their foes.

They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Jos 6:21)

When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those where were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day – all the people of Ai. (Josh 8:24-25)

Then Joshua struck and killed the kings and hung them on five trees, and they were left hanging on the trees until evening…That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left not survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:26, 28)

The Lord also gave that city and it s king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:30)

32 The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army—until no survivors were left. 34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish. 36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it. 38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron. (Josh 10:32-39)

12 Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. 13 Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor, which Joshua burned. 14 The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. 15 As the LORD commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses. (Josh 11:12-15)

It should be noted that the battles Israel engaged in were not about the acquisition of wealth and plunder, as much as it was about God’s wrath being poured out on the Canaanites for their idolatry and rebellious acts:

4 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Dt 9:4-5 [see also Dt 7:16; Josh 1:20])

The Canaanites were created by God as were all of the other peoples that He slated for destruction. While His love for them remained constant, so did His sense of Justice. While His Love is represented in His not wanting anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:9), His Justice was made manifest in the guilty being punished.

You can see the same dynamic in the New Testament. While God’s Love and Mercy knows no limitations, His Justice remains Perfect and Immutable.

But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. (2 Pet 2:12)

These men being referred to in 2 Peter are the same people being referred to in chapter 3, as far as God not wanting anyone to perish. But, the man who has willfully turned his back on God and gone on to commit rebellious acts will be punished. The punishment he receives is due to the fact that he chose not to accept God’s Mercy, not because God’s Love do not apply or was withheld.

If “loving my enemy” results in a disposition that excuses any and all wrongdoing, that its no longer love. While love keeps no record of wrongs, it does not “delight in evil” (1 Cor 13:6), nor does it attempt to re-define wrongful behavior as a noble act or something that don’t merit punishment.

God is love (1 Jn 4:16), but He is also just (Nah 1:3; 2 Thess 1:8-10). Insisting that His Love can somehow be perverted into a disposition that overlooks any and all wrongdoing is to lessen His Just nature and to cheapen His Grace.

A.W. Tozer in his book, “That Incredible Christian” says this:

Truth is like a bird; it cannot fly on one wing. Yet we are forever trying to take off with one wing flapping furiously and the other tucked neatly out of sight.

I believe it was Dr. G. Campbell Morgan who said that the whole truth does not lie in “It is written,” but in “It is written” and “Again it is written.” The second text must be placed over against the first to balance it and give it symmetry, just as the right wing must work along with the left to balance the bird and enable it to fly.

Many of the doctrinal divisions among the churches are the result of a blind and stubborn insistence that truth has but one wing. Each side holds tenaciously to one text, refusing grimly to acknowledge the validity of the other. This error is an evil among churches, but it is a real tragedy when it gets into the hearts of individual Christians ad begins to affect their devotional lives.

Lack of balance in the Christian life is often the direct consequence of overemphasis on certain texts, with a corresponding underemphasis on other related ones. For it is not denial only that makes a truth void; failure to emphasize it will in the long run be equally damaging. And this puts us in the odd position of holding a truth theoretically while we make it of no effect by neglecting it in practice. Unused truth become as useless as an unused muscle. (“That Incredible Christian”, A.W. Tozer, p59, Christian Publications,Inc. Harrisburg, PA, 1964)

The same kind of thing is being referred to in the book of Ecclesiastes:

16 Do not be overrighteous, be overwise— why destroy yourself? 17 Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool— why die before your time? 18 It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes. (Ecc 7:16-18)

To “love your enemy” in a way that ignores Justice and accommodates whatever wrongdoing they would exact upon the world around them, is to substitute God’s Love with a human license to engage in any kind of criminal or unethical behavior without fear of punishment. The person who dispatches that kind of love is, as A.W. Tozer described, “…flying on one wing.”

It is not either / or, rather it is both / and. To love my enemy the way Jesus commanded and the way which God demonstrated means that I love them as one who has been created in the image of my Heavenly Father and therefore deserving of any and all godly considerations. It also means that when their behavior places them in the category of a criminal or a threat, I take whatever steps are necessary to protect the innocent and ensure the proper dispatch of justice. That approach accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to that perspective that emphasizes only a portion of the Bible and ignores the rest.

III) Conclusion – A Balanced Approach

The balanced approach (see Ecc 7:16-18) to all this seems to point to two definitive Truths:

  • Christianity is communicated and proliferated through one’s witness and not one’s weapons.

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)

15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (1 Peter 3:15-16 [emphasis added])

  • Violence has been and can be used by God to accomplish His Purposes. That being the case, it is wrong to say that all violence is sinful and has no place in a Christian mindset. Championing and defending God’s Agenda is both noble and a manifestation of being obedient to God’s Directions.

In conclusion then, Judges 3:1-2 makes it clear that God placed a premium on making sure that the Israelites knew how to fight. It makes sense given the number of times Israel was called upon to strap on their swords and do battle with the enemies of God. In the New Testament, while Jesus does make it clear that to be reckless and hasty in resolving to remedy any and all disputes with a weapon is foolish (Those who live by the sword, die by the sword [Matt 26:52]), and He encourages believers to respond to insults and offenses by “turning the other cheek,” the context and verbiage of His admonishing the disciples to arm themselves taken along with God’s obvious endorsement of military force in the Old Testament compellingly demonstrates the Truth and Biblical place of “sanctified violence.”

Know how to fight, understand and practice the difference between justice and revenge and seek God’s Direction in all things so that however your enemy may confront you, whether with words or weapons, your response is indicative of Who you serve. That’s the difference between the violence that is done out of fear and pride as opposed to the violence that is truly sanctified.

For further reading, refer to the links below:

Punks With Pens

Journalism, I want to believe, is a respected vocation and art form. I say art form because to craft an article or a story in a way that engages your reader requires a skill that is honed through years of training and discipline.

Still, there are those who are journalists by trade who aren’t interested in informing the public of something as much as they interested in selling them something. Whether their content is fact or fiction is irrelevant because the bottom line is a receipt as opposed to a service worthy of compensation.

I read things in print and on the internet from time to time that are profane, critical and, worst of all, inaccurate. But because their verbiage is situated on an accessible and, in some cases, a popular platform, their credibility is assumed and despite the lack of footnotes or the presence of sources obviously cited out of context, their work is applauded and even revered.

I don’t have to agree with someone to respect their opinion, but that respect is bestowed only when it’s determined that their rhetoric is informed and not merely emotional. Otherwise, they’re just punks with pens and not worth debating let alone reading.

Ten Questions for Atheists

Here’s my thought: You remove God from the equation and the questions that are otherwise answered according to a biblically based dynamic are now responded to with horrendous probability values, concepts that bend the laws of Nature rather than explain them, and philosophical arguments that do not match what we know about the human experience.

In short, you’ve got to do a lot of intellectual scrambling to make up for the lack of substance that characterizes an atheist’s perspective on life. Take a look at the following questions and you tell me…

1) Where did you get your gravity from?

The origin of the cosmos, from the standpoint of the atheist, comes about as a result of a lucky collision of random elements. Then, thanks to the properties of gravity, physics, chemistry and so on, the elegant intricacies of life begin to surface. But where did you get your gravity from? Everything about your explanation is predicated on the preexistence of ordered systems within which your raw materials can combine and form into more complicated life forms. But you never attempt to explain who or what put the science in place that produces your end result.

d3e7f219d2da5aaaddfb0ad9f29e66db18de3b5e2) How does a vacuum cleaner become a drummer?

If the starting point for life was something basic that then evolved into a thinking organism with a unique personality and capable of artistic expression, then at some point your “matter” is no longer a mere collection of molecules. It has somehow become both material and non-material and you’ve redefined the essential composition of what matter is. “Panpsychism” is not a new theory, but it borders on the absurd given the lack of evidence there is to support it.

3) Where is your fossil record?

When Darwin first published his theory of evolution, he admitted that the fossil record that was needed in order to substantiate his theory was sorely lacking. Chapter Nine of his book “Origin of Species” is dedicated to what constitutes the most glaring discrepancy of his theory. He says “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”1 He goes on to explain that it’s not his theory that is flawed, rather it’s the geological record.

“Origin of Species” was published in 1859. The fossil record is no more conclusive now as it was 150 years ago. “Java Man,” the iconic image of man’s supposed distant ancestor, is a creative extrapolation based on three teeth, a skull cap and a femur.2 It is not even remotely close to a complete skeleton, nor are the other hypothetical half man / half ape intermediaries that fill the textbooks of biology classes throughout the nation. The archaeopteryx (ar-key-OPT-er-icks), the fossil remains of a bizarre looking bird discovered in 1861, is unreservedly embraced by many proponents of Darwin’s theories as a conclusive example of a transitional life form, bridging the gap between reptiles and birds. The problem, however, is that birds are very different from reptiles in terms of their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs and their distribution of weight and muscles. The fact that you have a reptilian look bird doesn’t qualify it as a reptile when it is fundamentally a bird.3

Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, sums it up by saying:

…[T]he universal experience of paleontology…[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre life forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.4

orion4) What’s the point of your existence?

That may sound kind of abrupt, but think about it: If the fact that you have a pulse is due to nothing more than a fortuitous and altogether random pileup of chemical materials, then you have no real role to play. Your presence in the cosmos is entirely inconsequential – you don’t matter to the storyline because there is no storyline and you’re just an insignificant bump in the road.

You might respond with a noble sentiment that says you’re here to do as much “good” as you can do, or you might feel liberated to be as self serving as you can possibly be. But, again, if there’s nothing intentional behind the structure of the universe, then even the very definition of what’s “good” becomes subjective. In the absence of a definitive standard, what resonates as a positive to one person is perceived as a problem to another.

In short, it’s all pointless. There’s nothing truly worthwhile that endures and you are nothing more than dust on a windy street.

de5601d06537dd3eb60a5f83cf68539bc18ce5175) How would you defend Darwin’s regard for Africans?

This is a little awkward:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.5

Darwin saw Africans as being inferior to Caucasians. In his mind, from a scientific standpoint, Negroes were similar to gorillas in that they were an evolutionary precursor to Europeans. Given Darwin’s prestige as the iconic champion of Evolutionary Theory, no doubt this is something you agree with.

6) What makes your definition of “moral behavior” superior to mine?

While Hitler’s approach to the Jewish people today is regarded as unconscionable, in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s many perceived it as scientifically sound. Germany’s “Society for Racial Hygiene” was Darwinian as far as its philosophical foundation and the ruthless acts committed in the context of the Holocaust were endorsed by some of the greatest German minds of that time as being a reasonable compliment to the forces of Natural Selection.6

Hitler’s approach worked for him and those who were like minded because they weren’t Jewish. But what if Adolf Hitler had been born a Jew? Would he have been as passionate in his belief that his race was inferior to those with blond hair and blue eyes? Probably not. But how would he have pleaded his case? If he was on the short end of Darwin’s evolutionary stick, how would he have convinced Germany’s scientific think tank that his brand of “moral behavior” was superior to their clinical justification for murder?

In the absence of an Absolute moral standard, the basis for one’s behavior is now more about what’s preferred as opposed to what’s right, and the code of ethics that is established for the community is established by those who are more persuasive rather than those who are more wise.

b860711982a65e6948a7b9bcc49278d97471bc6d7) At what point do you admit that your theories are based on impossible scenarios?

Scientists have concluded that the chances of a single protein molecule coming together by chance is 1 in 10450 power. These are the sort of probability values upon which you build your entire approach to life, morality and all the intangibles that constitute the human experience. Is that your idea of a credible philosophical foundation?7

8) What makes your explanation of the origin of the cosmos any less “faith based” than mine?

You believe that something can come from nothing, that order can proceed from chaos and, given enough time, a plant can develop a personality. In other words, you subscribe to a doctrine that transcends the natural world as we know it, which is the essence of the term “supernatural.”

In the absence of the concrete evidence required to substantiate your theories, like Darwin, you have “faith” that science will one day vindicate your convictions.

Regardless of how you attempt to veil your paradigm in academic sounding verbiage, your arguments are ultimately founded on a metaphysical platform and not an empirical one. When it comes to the origin of the cosmos, you believe in processes and forces that don’t exist. If your aversion to including a Judeo-Christian perspective in the conversation pertaining to the creation of the universe is due to the fact that one must have “faith” in order to subscribe to such a thing, then what prevents you from disqualifying yourself given the fact that your approach is no less subjective?

9) Why does the tone of the conversation change anytime the name “Jesus Christ” is mentioned?

You can talk about any religious figure that has ever graced the world stage and the tone of the conversation remains comfortably academic. But mention the name Jesus Christ and something changes. People start getting a little uncomfortable.

Why?

If Christ is nothing more than either a ridiculous fairy tale or a self-serving promotion designed to advance the fortunes of charlatans posing as pastors, then why does the very mention of Jesus’ Name reverberate in a manner that makes people look down and take a sudden in interest in their shoes?

10) If the Bible is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then why make Peter a coward, Moses a murderer and Jacob a liar?

Why include all of the flaws and shortcomings belonging to the principal characters of Scripture? If Christianity is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then how do you explain what is obviously a nonsensical decision as far as discrediting the heroes of the Bible by detailing their weaknesses and bad decisions?

Peter denied that He even knew Christ while talking to a servant girl. He wasn’t even conversing with someone of stature. He caved in the face of talking with a girl that was probably young enough to be his daughter (Matt 26:69-70). Moses was guilty of murder (Ex 2:11-12) and Jacob was a liar (Gen 27:19). Compare that to the way even Muhammad’s fingernail clippings and hairs were fought over by his followers.8

Scripture presents human beings as they are and not the way in which an intentionally misleading commercial would attempt to play down the undesirable characteristics of its main characters. Furthermore, the Bible invites questions and acknowledges its absurdity should its central theme prove false (Is 1:18, 1 Cor 15:19, 2 Pet 1:16). In short, this is hardly the verbiage of a text attempting to mislead its reader.

Conclusion

No doubt, there will always be those that simply refuse to believe. At the end of the day, it’s a spiritual dynamic that’s being engaged, which doesn’t always fit neatly within the confines of a box defined by purely empirical parameters.

But…

The existence of God can be recognized (Rom 1:20), the Reality of Christ can be observed (Acts 26:25-27) and His Gospel can be understood (Jn 6:65; 1 Cor 2:12; Jas 1:5). The only thing that’s illogical about the Bible is why God would go to the lengths that He does for the sake of humanity. To dismiss the Bible and Christianity in general based on the notion that it has no basis in fact is not an assessment founded on evidence, rather it’s a choice inspired by preferences.

What is it that possesses a human being to look at the stars – to consider the elegant intricacies of the created order – and respond with an explanation that contemptuously dismisses God and replaces Him with horrendous probability values, questionable time frames and theoretical processes that mock the boundaries of legitimate science?

Moreover, what drives an individual to spit upon the notion of a sinless Savior who lays aside His right to condemn and sacrifices Himself in order to redeem?

Typically, atheists proudly promote themselves as enlightened thinkers that tolerate followers of Christ as fools that refuse to accept the obvious and instead cling to antiquated myths that are ultimately revealed as limiting and intolerant.

Here’s my thought:

I see you at the foot of the cross either sneering at your God as He dies for you or dismissing it as a pointless fiction.

I hear you dismiss the depths of the ocean, the expanse of space and the exquisite complexity of our planet as crossword puzzles that can be solved, it’s just a matter of time.

And finally, I watch you passionately cling to a terminal existence where significance and happiness are built upon a foundation comprised entirely of things that are destined to die, quit or change at any given moment.

Christ brings a lot to the table – more than what you might’ve been lead to conclude based on whatever bad experiences you’ve had with “religion” in the past. Don’t evaluate a system according to the way that it’s abused and don’t dismiss your King according to the way He’s been distorted.

I’ve got no further questions…

1. “Origin of Species”, Charles Darwin, Penguin Classics, New York, NY, 2006, p250
2. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p61
3. Ibid, p57
4. Ibid p56
5. “On the Origin of Species – Sixth Edition”, Charles Darwin, https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Charles%20Darwin%20-%20The%20Origin%20of%20Species%20-%206th%20Edition.pdf, accessed March 4, 2015
6. “Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust”, Jerry Bergman, http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust, accessed August 28, 2015
7.”Probability and Order Versus Evolution”, Henry Morris, PhD., Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/, accessed May 11, 2015 (see also http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/)
8. “Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction”, Jonathan A.C. Brown, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011, https://books.google.com/books?id=9JafXLrLiwYC&pg=PT48&lpg=PT48&dq=Muhammads+fingernail+clippings+&source=bl&ots=9yZoCsiR2G&sig=SGuWORW8dxaD9P_gOeAc9MqB3U0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAGoVChMIvNesz_DVxwIVCjI-Ch0HRg3t#v=onepage&q=Muhammads%20fingernail%20clippings&f=false, accessed September 1, 2015

Hardcharger

hardchargersIn the USMC, “hardcharger” was a term you used to describe someone who was motivated. They were constantly striving for excellence and all the while being the kind of person you wanted to either work with or work for.

They had an energy about them that got you fired up. You enjoyed just being in the same room with them because of the way they effected the disposition of those within the sphere of their influence.

I came across several “hardchargers” during my nine years in the Corps. Master Sergeant “Top” Harris was a Vietnam vet with two purple hearts. Catalog Marine. When he gave the command, you snapped to attention and there was a part of you that took pride in working for an individual that had earned the right to light you up based on his combat record as well as his personal example.

Sergeant Major McGuirk was another Vietnam war vet. Personal decorations that extended to his collar bone. What made him so memorable was his perpetually cheerful demeanor. I remember standing outside as he came by and said, “Morning, Marines! Hope you’re doing good. Terrible day to be pissed off…!”

Then there was Sergeant Major Kellogg. He had earned the Medal of Honor as a Sergeant by using his body to shield his squad from the blast of a grenade. Although he was enlisted, you still saluted him as is the case with all Medal of Honor winners. What made his situation especially inspiring is that he was the only Sergeant Major in USMC history beside Dan Daly that had won our nation’s highest honor. I still get chills as I recall “sticking” my salute as his car drove by.

And there were others. Top Mike, Petty Office Dunaway, Major Croswell, Gunnery Sergeant Burd. And it’s not limited to the military. “Hardchargers” are everywhere, but while they’re not exclusive to any one walk of life, they’re not especially common.

You have to wired in a special way. It’s not something that can be quantified entirely, but the one characteristic that is consistently present is passion. It has to be complimented with a sense of humility and integrity. There also has to be an authentic commitment to the welfare of others, but “passion” is the underlying quality that gets your attention and makes you want to listen. The other virtues will “keep” your attention, but what initially gets you in a place where you’re positioned to be influenced and enriched is the sense of excitement these people bring to the table.

Pause of a minute.

In the early 1900’s, the percentage of boys aged 12-18 who chose to dismiss church as an unnecessary and irrelevant practice was 60-80 percent. 1 It seems that contemporary Christianity has always been challenged when it comes to presenting a relationship with Christ as being practical and not just profound. As a result, Christianity becomes regulated to something either academic or mystical – either way it’s processed as a three hour chore to be performed every Sunday as opposed to an every day paradigm that translates to an ever increasing collection of advantages over those things that would otherwise have you existing rather than truly living.

When you take a look at Christ as He truly was and is, you have the Ultimate Hardcharger. Don’t hear that as a segue into something “theological.” I have no trouble processing my Savior as as Personality worthy of my respect and admiration as well as my reverence. Go with me…

I aspire to individuals who carry themselves well. Theirs is a physical bearing that communicates an appreciation for discipline and a familiarity with hard work. In the Marines we were taught to speak with a command tone to your voice when tasked with directing others and you were to always lead by example. “JJ DID TIE BUCKLE.” Leadership Traits: Justice, Judgement, Decisiveness, Integrity, Dependability, Tact, Initiative, Enthusiasm, Bearing, Unselfishness, Courage, Knowledge, Loyalty, Endurance. Jesus had all of that.

And while the common “picture” of Christ is a frail, blue-eyed whisper of a man, it’s laughable when you try to reconcile that image with 30 years of hard, physical labor as a carpenter and the capacity to endure six hours on the cross before passing away – and that after being beaten and flogged. I’m not trying to suggest that Jesus was an action hero or a fitness model. What I am trying to do is strip away the tradition that insists on a Christ figure with perfect skin, a delicate bone structure and a voice perpetually accompanied with soft singing and a professional string ensemble.

Is the physical appearance of Jesus an issue? No. It’s His Identity and His Message that needs to be the focus (Is 53:2-3). But while there was nothing majestic about His look to the point where people were inclined to conclude He was Divine, that’s not our cue to assume a lack of discipline (gluttony [Dt 21:20; Prov 23:21]) or a pasty physique (sluggard [Prov 21:25; 24:30-34]). Look at Christ as He’s playing with the kids (Lk 18:16) but don’t try to “edit” Him when He’s driving out the money changers in the Temple (Jn 2:12-25). Hear the approachable nature in His Voice as He’s delivering the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:1-10), but hear His Authority when He refers to the Pharisees as a brood of vipers (Matt 12:34).

Bottom line: Recognize that every admirable trait you could possibly appreciate in someone you look up to was authored by God. And when we’re commanded to imitate God (Eph 5:1), we’re being admonished to be “hardchargers.” Think about it! The Fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23), the attributes of godly wisdom (Jas 3:17) – those are the foundational attributes that qualify an action as truly heroic. Those are the characteristics that certify one’s actions as virtuous and not just commendable. The Leadership Traits encouraged by the Marines? When the wisdom you’re deploying has as it’s philosophical starting point a fear of God (Prov 9:10), everyone of those traits is manifested in its purest and most effective form.

The term “Christian Solider” is often used to describe someone who is putting points on the board more so in terms of theological values than practical gains. And that’s part of why society sometimes has a quizzical look on their face when confronted with someone who excels in the marketplace and is also born again. But that shouldn’t be the case. God never restricted His Resources for tragedies and crisis situations only, nor was His Lordship designed to be one file folder among many. Rather, He’s the Filing Cabinet and the whole of life is to processed from a position of Divine strength and a sanctified sense of Purpose (Is 41:10; Phil 2:13).

That’s the quintessential hardcharger, right there!

Bring it!

 

1. Clifford Putney, Muscular Christianity, First Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003), Kindle edition.

Muscular Politics

11183448_832689813490741_7176047998887740183_nNot too long ago, I made it a goal to read a book about every personality featured on US Currency. Starting with Washington, here’s what I’ve been able to accomplish thus far (updated January 27, 2018):

George Washington ($1 dollar bill): “His Excellency: George Washington

Thomas Jefferson ($2 dollar bill): “Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power

Abraham Lincoln ($5 dollar bill): “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

Alexander Hamilton ($10 dollar bill): “A Fatal Friendship

Andrew Jackson ($20.00 bill): “Andrew Jackson: American Lion

Ulysses S. Grant ($50 dollar bill): “Ulysses S. Grant: Soldier and President

Benjamin Franklin ($100 dollar bill): “Benjamin Franklin: An American Life

William McKinley ($500 dollar bill): “The American Presidents Series: The 25th President, 1897-1901

Grover Cleveland ($1,000 dollar bill): Grover Cleveland: A Study in Character

James Madison ($5,000 dollar bill): “James Madison: A Life Reconsidered

Salmon P. Chase ($10,000.00 bill): Salmon P. Chase: A Biography

Woodrow Wilson ($100,000 dollar bill): “Wilson

In addition, I’ve read several books by David McCullough who does a great job of making history come alive: “Truman,” “John Adams,” “1776,” and “Mornings on Horseback” which is an account of Theodore Roosevelt’s early life. And as a quick aside, Theodore Roosevelt is one of my favorite presidents for a number of reasons, not the least of which is his passion and energy when it came to championing his Christian convictions. By Edmund Morris, there’s “Theodore Rex,” “Colonel Roosevelt and “The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt.” There’s also a short book from George Grant called “Carry a Big Stick: The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt” which is excellent.

In the midst of reading these books, I’ve had my perspective on the theme of politics reinforced as far as the way in which your ideas sometimes need to be presented in order to secure the endorsement of your opponent. First off, it’s not always a sinister process. Jesus displayed a deft sensitivity to the people He interacted with and by so doing was able to transform the life of individuals who would’ve otherwise remained cynical and unchanged (see John 4). This is politics in its most noble iteration. It becomes a dark art, however, when the agenda is contrary to the public good and the tactics used to communicate the substance of the issue are intentionally misleading.

It’s not always easy to distinguish the good from the bad, however, which is why it’s important to be informed beyond a quick glance at the headlines. It’s not an especially laborious process as much as it’s a question of simply considering other resources in addition to those that tend to dominate the airwaves and the internet. Bear in mind, too, that while it’s not difficult, it both responsible and biblical to have an idea as to what’s going and what political school of thought is truly deserving of your support (see 1 Chron 12:32).

Take for example a recent assertion by “Occupy Democrats” where it’s stated that the Obama administration has been a far better steward of our nation’s financial resources then his predecessor. At first glance, the figures appear compelling and the vitriolic verbiage seems justified. But as is the case with most indictments such as these, there’s another side to the story which is conspicuously absent.

When President Obama took office, the National Debt was 10.6 trillion dollars. According to Forbes magazine, it is now over 18 trillion. That’s a 70% increase in debt and every bit of that has occurred during Obama’s watch.

There’s a difference between total National Debt and annual budget deficit. The annual budget deficit is the amount of money that is spent annually over and above revenue. The Obama camp goes out of their way to state that their policies have decreased the annual budget deficit dramatically, thus casting a shadow over the Bush administration and like minded Republicans whose figures are notably higher. But should you take a moment and look at what George W. Bush spent and how he spent it, you’ll notice there’s more to the story than what’s being told by Obama’s statistics.

In 2008, Bush’s spending was at 485 billion above and beyond what the country was bringing in in terms of revenue. Spending more than what you have is never healthy, but some of those expenses were incurred as a result of 9/11. Towards the end of 2008 it had gone up another 100 billion due to recession related aid and suppressed revenues. But then Bush enacted the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) when the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis hit. The Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp were initiated in 1968 and 1970 respectively to aid in making home ownership more available. Over the years, however, an irresponsible accumulation of risk came to head leading to a financial crisis that George W. responded to with a 700 billion dollar loan.  As of today, 500 billion of those monies have been paid back. But those in the Obama camp don’t consider that loan anything other than an expense, thus forcing Bush’s deficit spending to a hypothetical 1.3 trillion dollar amount.1

The fact is, the deficit Obama inherited from Bush from a purely practical standpoint was 800 billion, much of that spent in the context of responding to 9/11, and other such crises. It’s also significant to note that the tax cuts that Bush spearheaded, the military spending he put in place as we well as the TARP Relief Package were all voted for by Obama.2

Now, is Bush blameless? No. But neither are the last several Presidents going all the way back to FDR.3 The point here is that to suggest that George W’s administration constitutes an outrageous degree of fiscal irresponsibility and it’s his monetary sins that puts Obama’s financial record in a bad light, is to completely overlook the fact that Obama’s administration has contributed significantly to the National Debt. Moreover, unlike the TARP scenario where the spending was in response to a crisis with global implications and engineered as a loan, Obamacare was  /is  a piece of legislation thrust upon the American public despite many being passionately opposed to it.

Consider the differences between Obamacare and the TARP Relief Package. In 2010, the Democrats had a Supermajority thus making it unnecessary to secure a Republican vote in favor of the Affordable Health Care Act. That majority would come in handy, given the way in which this legislation compels all Americans to purchase health insurance – a dynamic that inspired some to question the bill’s Constitutionality.4 In addition, the fact that Obamacare requires all citizens to fund abortions and imposes penalties on those who do not purchase government funded healthcare further distinguishes Obamacare as an politically, liberal maneuver more so than a needful response to a crisis such as the TARP legislation that was a line of credit extended to an industry whose collapse stood to send lethal ripples throughout the national and international economic pool.

Obamacare is  designed to make heathcare more affordable to more Americans by offering government subsidized policies and broadening the scope of Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of the Affordable Health Care Act to be slightly over 2 trillion dollars over the next decade. When considering the cost coupled with the lack of participation on the part of those who were apparently desperate for affordable health care – those two factors alone are enough to establish AHC more as an expenditure than an obligation. Combine those shadows with the lack of a sound Constitutional basis and an obligation to subsidize lifestyle choices that some consider immoral and you have a darkness that is thick and sinister.

Obamacare – An opportunity to further socialize the American Health Care system accomplished by a liberal supermajority that adds trillions of dollars to our National Debt…

TARP Relief Package – A problem that needed fixing responded to with a loan, most of which has been paid off…

No doubt you could debate government controlled healthcare for days, but the point being made here is that Obama’s resolve has added a considerable amount of debt to the national tally and to position him as being “financially responsible” is possible only if you dismiss the manner in which he supported the Bush policies he now conveniently criticizes and overlook the legislation he compelled the American people to accept at a cost that has yet to be completely assessed.

In short, it’s not necessarily prudent to conclude that President Obama has been a better steward of our nation’s finances that his predecessor. It’s certainly not a productive conversation if the only facts being considered are those that “Occupy Democrats” wants to imply as being a comprehensive snapshot of the situation.

And that’s the difference between uninformed convictions and Muscular Politics.

 

 

1. The Hill, “The True Deficits”, Dick Hill,  February 2, 2010, http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/79359-these-are-the-true-deficits-bush-800b-obama-14t, accessed August 13, 2015

2. American Thinker, “Why Blame Obama”, Randall Hoven, http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/09/why_blame_obama.html, accessed August 16, 2015

3. Time Magazine, “Which President Accrued The Highest Budget Deficits?”, Natalie Morin, September 9, 2014, http://time.com/3306060/which-president-accrued-the-highest-budget-deficits/, accessed August 16, 2015

4. Conservapedia, “Obamacare”, http://www.conservapedia.com/ObamaCare, accessed August 20, 2015

 

More reading…

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-dodge/

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/79359-these-are-the-true-deficits-bush-800b-obama-14t

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program