Category: Articles

I must say that I am imminently relieved that they gave up on the Roman numerals. Super Bowl XXXVIII just seemed wrong, somehow. And, this year’s moniker under the old system would have been Super Bowl L. Enough said.

My personal (partial) viewing of the event was made considerably more pleasant by my discovery of the CBS app for Amazon’s Kindle Fire television.

All Fall I lamented our decision to forego cable television in favor of a combination of broadcast antenna reception and program bundling services. Rooting for the Alabama Crimson Tide was made considerably more difficult since CBS carried most games, and I would have needed the Space Needle to pick up its nearest relay tower. Attempting to stream games only served to increase my blood pressure, because the inevitable “gaps” in streaming seemed to occur only at times of live action. I was able to watch huddles flawlessly, but glitches seemed to always strike right at the snap and then “catch up” when the play was over.

In all aspects, the Super Bowl is an amalgamation of cultural and societal passions and influences. Here are a few of my takeaways from yesterday’s game:

Halftime Shows are Lame

Generally, the halftime show is a good time to make a snack run. Or visit the dentist. Or do your taxes.

Role Models are Rare

Social media was full of the expressions of “disappointment” with various sports figures following the game, most notably Cam Newton and Peyton Manning.

Newton had, for most of the season, been the ebullient, child-like enthusiast of the game who lifted others’ spirits as he excelled and made opposing teams look foolish. But after Denver’s Orange Crush defense made him look like the court jester, he took on the persona of petulant child upset that he couldn’t have a fourth bowl of ice cream. His demeanor in post-game interviews was deplorable.

Not that this should be surprising to any of us. Not because it is Cam Newton, but because a twenty-something handed millions of dollars, fame, and seeming invincibility is bound to suffer deflation when he is made to take a dose of reality.

Peyton Manning, with plenty of reason to celebrate being in the game at all following normally career-ending neck surgery and a season that was less than stellar, was mobbed by media after he won his second Super Bowl. Manning said, among other things, that he was planning to “drink a lot of Budweiser” and later “thank the Man Upstairs.”

He was criticized for promoting alcohol consumption and for using an unbiblical euphemism for God.

Christians know that all men are sinners, even us Christians. I don’t know Newton’s profession of faith, but his behavior should reinforce to us that we all tend to be fair-weather glory agents, “rejoicing always” but especially when everything is going our way. And, we tend to expect ivory-tower theological prowess and social savvy from Christian celebrities, when, well, we shouldn’t.

Fundamentalist Abortionism is Vacuous

My laugh-out-loud advertising moment came in a commercial from Doritos, which portrayed a baby in utero reaching for his dad’s Doritos during an ultrasound procedure (view it here).

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) referred to this as an unfair “tactic of humanizing fetuses.” (See the good National Review article here.)

The intellectual and philosophical emptiness of zealous abortionism — which calls truth a “tactic” and considers babies to be in need of “humanizing” — is on display here, brought to the forefront by no less likely a protagonist than a tasty nacho cheese chip.

For me, the Super Bowl, as usual, seemed to have a bit of everything. Except streaming gaps.

On Friday afternoon President Obama appeared at the White House to give remarks regarding the Florida jury’s acquittal of George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin’s death. Official video and descriptions appeared on the White House blog page.

The President’s tone was even-handed, but the content of his remarks were decidedly deliberate.

The President did not encourage citizens to support  jury trials, the rule of law, or the American court system, nor did he demonstrate the unity of our citizenry despite — and in — our diversity. Instead, while offering half-hearted appeals for restraint and self-reflection, the President limited the counsel and wisdom of the world’s most powerful office to that of personal experience and emotionalism.

“Trayvon Martin could have been me, thirty-five years ago” is how the President drew the comparison. Some may recall that when the news first broke that a black teen in Florida had been killed by a Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer, the President lamented “if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”

Entire ethnicities are excluded from identifying with the President’s remarks — and the goals he espouses — when their members are unable to say that their sons would look the same, or that a bit of time travel would put us, too, in Martin’s shoes. The justification for this emphasis on race-identification was a shared experience, but an experience that was only shared by certain citizens.

The President sympathized with those who, despite the advances of the Civil Rights accomplishments, still face race-based suspicion, hostility, and social separation. Race-based behavior is still a fact in this country, no one should have to endure it, and compassion and understanding for its victims are entirely appropriate. But the President appeared to justify race-based rejection of a State’s judicial process — and ostensibly the non-blacks who run it — when he explained that African-Americans view things like the Zimmerman verdict through the lens of racial discrimination. According to the President, one’s sense of injustice is understandable, and actionable, when it comes primarily as a result of one’s own experiences and the experiences of one’s own ethnicity.

The President has already drawn criticism for inserting White House opinion to situations involving local criminal matters, one of which required him to attempt spin control by hosting a “beer summit.” The merits of “beer summits” in general notwithstanding, Presidents should not as a matter of course express personal opinion in such matters.

Yet he did express himself, and what he expressed seemed to be that it is permissible for past experience — and the emotions they engender — to affect the assessment of present fact.

Without doubt, our experiences will affect how we view the world and events around us. The best result of this is that we are better able to question appearances. But this ability to question appearances should lead us closer to the facts, not farther away from them.

As a result, the President’s counsel was neither much wiser nor more fruitful than the facebook philosophy which demanded answers to such things as “What if Trayvon were white?” and “What if Trayvon were your son?” The assumption in the first is that if Trayvon Martin were white, it would mean that those who now think Zimmerman innocent would necessarily reverse positions. But those who ask the question don’t consider that it could just as easily be put to them to demonstrate that if Zimmerman could be found not guilty of murdering a white teenager, then he could also be found not guilty of murdering of black one.

The second assumes that those who aren’t emotionally connected to Trayvon Martin would change their tune if they were. This, too, is subject to turnabout, but one wonders why no one dares ask the question “What if George were your son?”

It is just this sort of dependence on personal experience and emotional interest that our Lord Jesus calls his followers to resist. For when he says “love your neighbor as yourself” he does not allow for qualifications based on just how closely that neighbor shares my experiences, or how closely his appearance matches mine. And when asked precisely who the “neighbor” is (Jesus’ contemporaries apparently had the same issues we do), Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan. He did not allow that “neighbor” meant only those who look like me, think like me, and vote like me.

I should be able to lament the death of teenaged boys, and to identify with and be compassionate toward the parents who suffer his loss, regardless of his skin color or theirs. I should be able to identify with and be compassionate toward the one who has to deal with taking another man’s life, regardless of his accent or ethnic lineage.

Neither the President’s remarks nor facebook philosophy teach me that. Only the grace of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ does.

One must seriously weigh the decision to write about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

Everyone wants to know whether you vote Guilty or Not Guilty, and someone is bound to be very disappointed with whatever answer is given, or the answer that is not given at all. And, with the nationalization of local crime, “someone” turns out to be quite large numbers of someones.

Yet if we are able to reasonably discuss those things that threaten to divide us, in which the stakes of further division are high, hearing more voices is generally better than hearing fewer.

Viewing the Martin-Zimmerman case from a distance, I naturally come to a conclusion about what the evidence shows, with one large caveat: I don’t know all the evidence. Nevertheless, I think that the evidence, as it has been reported, would support either the jury’s conclusion that Zimmerman committed a type of manslaughter (something less than premeditated murder) or its decision that Zimmerman acted in justified self-defense.

At this point, most readers will disagree with me, perhaps violently, and claim that there is only one possible outcome from the evidence, and depending on your perception of the case, some will say the jury reached that one possible outcome while others will say it did not. Herein, as they say, lies the problem and the potential for a tumultuous national future.

For if you believe that the only reason the jury reached a Not Guilty verdict is because Trayvon Martin is black and George Zimmerman is not-black, because it capitulated to the jurors’ own latent racist tendencies, because it is part of a long train of race-based abuses foisted on minorities by the majority government structure, then you will never be part of a solution to our nation’s real racial divide, but instead will exacerbate it.

Similarly, if you believe that the only verdict the jury could have reached is Not Guilty because Trayvon Martin is black and George Zimmerman is not-black, because young black boys in hoodies are always thugs looking for trouble, because black people in gated communities must be criminals, because you refuse to consider the possibility of sinister racial motivations, then you, too, will never be part of the solution to our nation’s real racial divide, but instead will exacerbate it.

Given how the conversation tends to go, one suspects, however, that a solution is not within human reach.

Thabiti Anyabwile, in his post about this, states well the frustration some of us feel regarding the race discussion. First, for those holding a biblical worldview, there should be no race, only ethnicity. Second, in many situations, the race card is inserted to a deck that did not already contain it; in others, the issue becomes either only about race or not enough about race.

Yet one thing that is always present in conflict between people, that never needs to be inserted, but that is almost always neglected, is not the race card, but the sin card.

It is not right that anyone needs a Neighborhood Watch. It is not right that humans should use weapons against one another. It is not right that residents view certain other-looking people with suspicion for only that reason. It is not right that teenaged boys should die, or that entire families should face violent retaliation, or that riots and inciting riots should be seen as acceptable standard public discourse. Yet these things are not right, not because we have different amounts of melanin in our skin, but because we have an abundance of sin infecting our hearts.

Right now, we engage in acts motivated by sin. Our assessment of those acts is distorted by filters tainted with sin. And our discussions with one another about those acts is also contaminated with sin.

The trump to the sin card, however, is not hate or revenge or riots or government. The trump to the sin card is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel that frees us from the penalty, power, and presence of sin when we admit our inability, repent, and trust the reconciliation to God that is found only in Jesus Christ.

This gospel of reconciliation to God makes us ambassadors of reconciliation, and empowers us to live together, to love our neighbors as ourselves, to do to others what we would have them to do us. It enables us to live in meekness toward one another: not demanding of each other our rights, respect and reward, and to live hungering righteousness and justice for one another, not looking only to our own self-interest.

Whatever the opinion of Christ-followers to the death of Trayvon Martin, and whatever our opinion about the acquittal of George Zimmerman, we should not allow this gospel to be eclipsed.

Celebrity is a two-edged sword when it comes to politics.Those on the right applaud the efforts of the Charleton Hestons and the Kelsey Grammars to weigh in on political issues, but lament the ignorance of Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman when they do. For the left, it is just the opposite.

Nevertheless, not many on either side would typically look to the ranks of professional athletes for serious commentary on weighty matters of the day. “World Peace” would not, ironically, speak with much authority on resolving conflict, nor would Tiger Woods draw many to his marriage enrichment seminars.Unfortunately, the pattern does not work in reverse: Congress, politicians, presidents, and do-gooders of all stripes seek to weigh in on employment and safety issues in, say, professional football.

Occasionally, though, a prominent pro athlete with celebrity does or says something that is a perfect illustration of a political point. Such is the case with Fred Mickelson, who recently came under fire for saying what many are thinking, and announcing his decision to leave the State of California in order to escape its inordinately confiscatory taxes.

There are two points here: the first is that Mickelson was pressured to renounce his comments, which he eventually did. It is unclear whether Mickelson is apologetic for merely having said aloud what was in his head, or that he actually now looks forward to paying more tax. Perhaps he renounced due to pressure from sponsors, but even if that were the case, it is a sad illustration how we proclaim free speech, but only such speech as won’t get you lampooned or lambasted on social media.

The second point is that Mickelson’s options, were he to reach his limit with California’s tax rates, included moving to a state whose tax rates were more to his liking. This is, in essence, a key component of the political structure we call federalism: because there is no [theoretically] all-inclusive national government, states are free to do what their citizens want, and citizens of one state can move to another because he prefers the political, economic, or social climate there better.

A key to federalism is a national government that is not the exclusive governing authority for its citizens. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee this, at least in theory. In other words, because Washington, D.C. does not dictate each state’s income tax rate, I am free to live under the government seated Montgomery, Alabama, or Bismark, North Dakota, or wherever.

But what is disturbing is some of the criticism Mickelson received, which included shame that he would even consider moving to a different state in order to pay less tax, because, well, it is his moral obligation to pay as much tax as he can. This sentiment is dangerously close to a complete enervation of the idea of federalism, itself. We see the same illustrated in efforts to create (new) national gun laws, national policy on health care, and so forth.

The beauty of federalism is that states are free to experiment with policy on a smaller scale than national governments are able to, and other states that are so inclined can emulate successful experiments for their own citizens. And, as Mickelson illustrates, citizens who don’t like their states’ experimenting can move to another. This is not possible when there is national policy on every issue: citizens lose freedom and government power goes unchecked.

For now, enjoy your federalism and freedom to move to another state. Just don’t tell anyone why.

It is difficult for us to process the fact that one person would intentionally kill almost thirty people at one time, twenty of the victims grade-school children. But that is exactly what happened a week ago in Newtown, Connecticut.

While death surrounds us on a daily basis, mass-murder and large-scale disaster are especially troubling for us for many reasons, not the least of which is the mere fact that the body count is high, and readily observable. We are somewhat capable of understanding when one man kills another in the heat of passion, but when one man kills dozens of people who don’t even know him, we find it much more difficult to comprehend. We are somewhat capable of handling one man drowning in the surf, but when a tsunami kills thousands, we find the carnage shocking.

There is nothing wrong with that. Death of fellow humans on a mass scale is difficult enough in wartime, when death is expected, but when it is unexpected — as in the case of school murders or tsunami casualties — the scale of death makes it even harder to find, or even desire, satisfactory explanation.

Which is why we tend to avoid understanding and opt instead for action. Frequently, though, our action or decisions occur during the midst of tragedy and the grief that surrounds it. There are several reasons that we should avoid making certain decisions while we are too close to tragedy.

1. Tragedy Affects Our Perspective

Because the immediacy and immanence of death and other tragedy loom so large, it is natural for them to take on a significance that for a time displaces other concerns. For those suffering the death of a loved family member, for instance, prior concerns about career or finances are momentarily of no concern.

But the immanence of tragedy does not only displace concerns of other types. It also tends to displace the same type of tragedy suffered by others. Twenty children and six adults died at the hands of the murdered in Newtown, Connecticut. Many more die each day in car accidents, may more are aborted each day, and many more children die each month by drowning. The carnage of automobile death on an annual basis is no less grievous because it distributed throughout the year; it’s simply less visible.

Because of this distortion in our perspective, we should avoid making decisions about policy while suffering the effects of grief or emergency. For example, if I observe looters approaching my home, I hide the valuables and bar the door; I don’t call my congressman to discuss the crowd control and assembly laws.

2. Tragedy Offers Easy Targets

In the midst of tragedy the temptation will be to do something, anything, to ensure that this sort of thing “never happens again.” But with a perspective distorted by grief, we might fall victim to one of two errors. First, we might wrongly conclude that this sort of thing can be prevented. Second, we might wrongly determine what would actually prevent it.

This particular danger becomes more pronounced when politicians seek to gain mileage for their causes. Recently government officials have expressed their opinion that politicians should not let crisis “go to waste,” and that the Newtown, Connecticut massacre particularly be “exploited” by the current administration for political purposes.

In the midst of tragedy, we should resist hastily casting about for boogeymen to target, such as violent video games, deficient mental health services, and scary-looking firearms. Instead, the better course is to protect lives and bind wounds in the present before seeking to solve all problems in the future.

3. Tragedy Obscures Real Problems

In addition to offering easy, false targets, tragedy tends to obscure the real problems from our field of vision. Should we decide that the number of annual automobile deaths is unacceptable, the real problem is not likely the car. Or, if it is, we will decide that it is not the problem that we want to solve out of the equation. Instead, given that we want to keep the car, we look to other safety matters such as road conditions, driver ability and sobriety, and crash-worthiness.

In the case of mass murder, the easy target is the tool used by the killer or the mental health services provided him. The real problem, however, might lie completely elsewhere. As we have seen in recent events, tragedy tends to prevent us from considering other factors: mass shootings tend to occur at “soft targets” — movie theaters and schools where there is not likely to be much resistance; this lack of resistance is advertised to the bad guys with signs such as “This school is a gun-free zone”; those given responsibility over “soft targets” are not themselves allowed to carry firearms; “mental health” services offered to troubled people typically don’t include the notion of personal responsibility for sin; the eviction of religious orthodoxy from public schools leaves troubled students with no concept of God’s command, “thou shalt not murder.”

Conclusion

I do not offer a solution to the problem of the mass murder in Newtown. One primary reason is the glaring fact that the “solutions” offered by the “experts” and politicians — including the assault-weapons ban in effect at the time the Connecticut massacre occurred — did not prevent this one.

What I do offer is the orthodox belief of the Christian church that the death, disease and disaster that currently plague the world are the result of original sin and the individual wickedness that are in the hearts of all of us. We should remember, too, that it is not only those who commit mass murder who are effected by sin, but also those who would propose grand solutions to prevent their offenses.

U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi’s office recently invited a Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, to testify in Congress regarding the need for the government to mandate insurance coverage for contraception. This is all part of an apparent attempt to shore up support for the government healthcare bill, otherwise known as ObamaCare.

Ms Fluke lamented the fact that contraception for a typical law student costs about $3,000, and without government intervention, her student health insurance would not cover it. Having to pay for it on her own would make it difficult for her to make ends meet, and likely put a crimp in her style.

Do the Democrats and others pushing for the United States government to mandate the coverage of contraception in health insurance policies really believe that they will garner support for government mandated health care by parading a student to whine about her $3,000 law school contraception bill? Really?

President Obama beat a strategic retreat from the administration’s initial position mandating that all employers — including religious ones — provide contraption coverage in their health policies. In a sort no-compromise compromise, President Obama then allowed that the religious employers would not be required to pay for contraception coverage, but that their insurance company providers would. As anyone can see, this is a distinction without a difference, and under this “compromise” the religious employer is still paying for contraception, against their religious objections.

The U.S. Senate today presented the Blunt Amendment to provide a conscientious objector escape for just such religious employers. It was closely defeated along partisan lines.

In explaining the government’s position, Barbara Boxer (D, California), explained that permitting religious employers and others to exercise a conscience objection would be tantamount to giving them a “veto” over women’s health.

Among the many unbelievable aspects of this continually unfolding story, two stand out:

1) That the U.S. Senate would veto a provision allowing for religious objections to government mandates — regardless of the political mechanics involved in presenting the bill — displays a woeful ignorance of the U.S. Constitution and a signal disregard for both the rights of religious people in this country and any attempt to restrict government power.

2) That Barbara Boxer would classify a religious objection not to an individual’s use of contraception — as in a ban — but to the requirement that the religious organization pay for it as a “veto” of women’s health displays precisely how certain elements of this government views things: the ability to be free from the natural result of procreation and from the consequences of a runaway libido are tantamount to inherent rights, and rank above rights stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Additionally, the ordinary use of contraception and abortifacent drugs relate to “women’s health” only to the extent that pregnancy is deemed a disease. In such a view contraception — which we must acknowledge consists of tools to defeat new life — is thus the inoculation against a parasite that takes over the womb of females.

Thus the U.S. Government is deceiving its citizens by a blatant perversion of language, a gross violation of the Bill of Rights, and a callous disregard for the will of the governed.

Yet, still, the Government is not completely anti-religious: it simply wants us all to bow the Bacchanalian knee to Aphrodite.

It is difficult to imagine a response to the Penn State child abuse situation that does not leave one horrified.

At this point, many details remain to be unearthed, but both the Penn State president and its legendary football coach — Joe Paterno — have been fired. More than one of the actors in this sordid play — including Paterno — have “lawyered up” and are not answering questions about their involvement. Penn State students rioted following the revelations, possibly in response to the university’s decision to fire the president and coach.

It is reported that one-time assistant coach Gerald Sandusky was caught in the act abusing a young boy in a campus locker room. The eyewitness reported the matter to his superior, and indications are that those who knew and were required to do so followed the reporting requirements of the university. However, no one seems to have notified police. Additionally — and perhaps most inexcusably — no one attempted to stop Sandusky or prevent the act that was witnessed. Furthermore, no one barred Sandusky’s access to campus locker rooms, showers, and the young boys he enjoyed abusing there.

Since the allegations against Sandusky first came to light, other victims have come forward to claim that they, too, were abused by Sandusky.

The Penn State revelations came soon after initial allegations of inappropriate conduct by presidential candidate Herman Cain. I previously questioned the motive of the adult women raising the Cain allegations for the first time against the now presidential candidate. What is different about the Penn State victims now coming forward?

First, unlike the allegations raised against Herman Cain, there appears to be very real physical harm committed against the Penn State victims: sexual abuse by an adult male against a male child. Second, the Penn State perpetrators did not ascend to prominence only recently: Joe Paterno has been famous for decades, and his assistant coaches have been known, too. No one in the Penn State matter has achieved a new level of prominence that prompted the revelation of prior perfidy. Third, the nature of the alleged abuse would have prevented the victims’ ability to respond appropriately: an adult woman reporting unwanted sexual advances is quite different from a child reporting actual rape by those who are charged with protecting him.

My question regarding the Herman Cain scenario was how a pastor should counsel the women if they came to him for advice. How, then, should a pastor counsel the abused boys and their families in the Penn State matter? Victims of sexual abuse are not required to report or publicize the crime. If, through private godly counsel and the practice of Christian forgiveness a victim has spiritually and mentally left the event behind, it is possible that it need not be raised.

But what of the issues of righteousness and justice? An individual victim might legitimately decide not to bring attention to prior wrong he has overcome. Yet the fact remains that the perpetrators and those who helped cover up a crime have abused their authority, have betrayed their trust, and should not continue in the same positions of responsibility they occupied at the time of their abdication.

Many are tempted to frame their outrage over the abuse of children at Penn State in terms of punishing perpetrators “for the victims.” Society certainly has an interest in punishing criminals and stripping authority from those who abuse it. Those who claim the name “Christian” should certainly recognize our obligation to maintain the prophetic voice against such abuses of authority toward the weak and powerless, as well as to call for the proper use of government’s “sword”.

Our system of laws is designed in part to prevent individuals from taking their own revenge. But it is all too easy to take revenge vicariously, as if the only way for a victim to be made whole is for society to extract its proverbial pound of flesh from the perpetrator. This is as much a denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ as is denying our obligation under God to mete out just punishment for crimes.