Category: Uncategorized

I have been reading with my usual mix of amusement, sadness, and disbelief the growing debate over the movie End of the Spear. Some in the Christian community have decided to grab the pitchforks, light the torches, and storm the gates of Every Tribe Entertainment, the production company behind the movie. In case you have been a cloistered monk until today I will give you a bit of background. Here is the mission statement from the company’s website.

• To create quality entertainment for a broad audience that inspires hope through truth. Every Tribe Entertainment grew out of the hopes and dreams of film-makers and individuals who desire to make a difference in our world and in our culture. Frustrated with the lack of quality story content in films today, and driven to provide more than just entertainment in our films, Every Tribe was founded to bring to life stories of courage and strength of the human spirit. Courage, tolerance, mercy, forgiveness, faith and love. We base our film choices on what we hope to inspire rather than what we hope to sell. This philosophy has its fingerprints on what we do and how we do it. We hope to inspire all who view our films as well as those who work with us to create them.

Sounds good. Every Tribe Entertainment was the darling of the Evangelical community because the company planned to release a theatrical version of the amazing story of Nate Saint. He and his four missionary colleagues were murdered trying to reach the Waodani tribe of Ecuador. But Evangelicals, like a mistreated pit bull, can turn on you in a heartbeat. I know that to be true because I am part of the Evangelical tribe and my first book brought out a few of those pit bulls (when they grab on it is hard to shake them off!). The primary reason that we have released the hounds on Every Tribe Entertainment is their choice to cast Chad Allen as the main character in the movie. Allen plays the dual roles of Nate Saint and later his grown up son Steve. The choice is generating great controversy because Chad Allen is a gay activist and recently appeared on the cover of the leading gay magazine. This has caused a flood of anguish about what we should do about the movie and how we should respond to Every Tribe Entertainment. Here are my thoughts in no particular order of importance…

1)  What should we do with the movie?

Go see it.

It is a very good movie with a powerful message. Don’t worry about sin in the lives of the cast or crew. If that becomes a criteria you will never see another movie in your life. Actually, you won’t even be able to go to church! Remember the incredible and heartwarming story of Eric Liddell that was told in the movie Chariots of Fire? The role of Liddell was played by Ian Charleston, a gay actor. Does that mean the impact of Chariots of Fire has been diminished? Of course not. And I believe the supernatural message of redemption and forgiveness in End of the Spear is not affected because Christians might not like the choice of Chad Allen.

2) What should we do about Every Tribe Entertainment?

Write them and thank them.

They have put their time and treasure into making a movie that they believe in. Just because you might not like every part of it does diminish what these men and women are trying to do. My late friend and mentor Bob Briner would have been rejoicing to see a company like this using their skills and vision within the culture. His book Roaring Lambs (http://roaring-lambs.org/) was a major influence in my life. Bob once said, “It’s time for believers to confidently carry their faith with them into the marketplace so that our very culture feels the difference.” That is what the people at Every Tribe Entertainment are trying to do. I commend them.

I also know that what they are attempting is not easy and we should be supporting them as the body of Christ in prayer and encouragement. Perhaps they will take a little different approach for their next project if we (the Evangelical Pit Bulls of America…or EPBA) don’t cause them to give up and go live in the jungles of Ecuador.

3) Should Christians be concerned about a gay activist playing such an important role?

Not in the way that I suspect most are concerned.

Jason Janz wrote about his concerns at his weblog  (http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2244). He voices some issues that I would gently disagree with and discuss. Here are some of Jason’s thoughts.

“Every Tribe Productions seems to believe that there would never be a case where someone’s public and known behavior would ever disqualify him from playing a Christian missionary in a film. Does anyone really believe that Chad Allen was the best possible actor for Nate Saint? This would be like Madonna playing the virgin Mary. I propose that the Christian film-making community come up with a code of ethics that will show the difference between a Christian film company and a secular film company. If you are going to ask for our loyalty and support, you need to be willing to hear our concerns and let us know that you will protect our beliefs, not muddy the waters.”

First of all, Every Tribe Entertainment thought that Chad Allen was the best choice and they put up the money to get it produced. If we want to do a better job we could choose to drop our stones of criticism and enter the arena. I don’t believe that a company who produces a film needs to be willing to hear my concerns before they spend their money. They can always ask for my loyalty and support but it is my call as to whether it is merited. But coming up with a “code of ethics” to warrant our support is not an idea I can support. I believe if Every Tribe had done that they would have produced a film that played only to Christians and would have gone straight to video after collecting about $200 in box office revenues.

The leadership of Every Tribe issued this statement to the Baptist Press.

“We are the filmmakers of End of the Spear. We cast Chad Allen because he had the best audition of anyone else by far. We know that the character in the film and the actor are not the same. If as a film company we could only work with people who were completely sanctified, then the film would never have been made. We do not agree with Chad over homosexuality. End of the Spear is not about Chad Allen, but rather it’s about remarkable people who lived their faith against all odds, and dared to reach out at the cost of their lives.”

I am praying for God to bless the efforts of this company. I believe their mission is sincere. Even if they made a mistake in casting Chad Allen I still believe that the awesome and sovereign God can use the power of this story in the lives of many viewers. My God is the same God who told Isaiah,  “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.” His plan will be accomplished. And imagine the uproar and further damage between evangelicals and the gay community if Every Tribe had dropped Allen after learning of his advocacy.

The Baptist Press continued in their story about the End of the Spear controversy.

“The producers have said they were not aware of Chad Allen’s homosexuality when they gave him the role of Steve Saint in the film but decided to stick with him once they were told of his sexual practices. Saint, who has befriended Allen, hopes that the film will help people see “that all of us have tragic, shattered relationships in our lives and that God is the one who can put them back together in incredible ways.”

“If Mincaye and I can be very close friends, be family, love each other, and my kids and my grandchildren can love Mincaye and his family -– if that can happen out of the tragic relationship that we started with –- then maybe it’ll give people hope that their strained relationships can also be reconciled and that, better yet, God can be part of the answer,” Saint said in an interview with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s Decision magazine.”

As for Chad Allen I have a very simple strategy. I am praying for him. If we believe that his beliefs and lifestyle are unbiblical then how about challenging the body of Christ to pray for him? I am afraid that the firestorm that has greeted his role in this movie has not caused Chad Allen to want to reevaluate his syncretic view of faith and embrace the liberating truth of the gospel. He has had the privilege of portraying a martyr for our Lord Jesus. But he is merely an actor. Chad Allen is not Nate Saint. I find it an amazing irony that the word hypocrite comes from the Greek word for actor. Hyprokrites means one who plays a part, an actor. Perhaps all of us should take a moment to see if the actor who is the real problem is the one in the mirror. I am a sinner saved by grace. Pray for me. Pray for Every Tribe Entertainment. Pray for Chad Allen. Pray that our Evangelical agenda will not keep away those who would be touched and even changed by this story. And pray that every Christian will hide this truth in his or her heart…

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.  (Romans 3, NIV)

 

 

 

H.L.Mencken wrote that criticism is prejudice made plausible. I have a suspicion that recent reviews of  End of the Spear have revealed as much about some critics prejudice as they have about their views of the movie. And it is very possible that it is my prejudice that makes me suspicious. The movie opened Friday to criticism on both sides of the cultural divide. Many in the Christian community were critical of the “soft” presentation of the gospel message. Many secular critics were appalled at the overtly Christian message. Hmmmmm. Others in the Christian community were apoplectic over the casting choices in the movie. We will address that tomorrow. Today lets take a look at the critical reviews of the movie End of the Spear.

I have said before that if I had heard a preacher tell me that hell would be eternity spent with movie critics I would have hit the altar much sooner. These people really seem to be unhappy campers. The following is a sampling of some of the critics with my comments inserted parenthetically.

TV Guide’s Movie Guide wrote, “this ersatz jungle adventure is really a thinly disguised Sunday School lesson in faith, charity and the savagery of life without Christ.” (Yes, that would be because that is the story of the book on which the movie is BASED…sorry for raising my font voice. The reviewer makes that very point in the next line) “Based on the true story of Steve Saint and his father, Nate Saint, one of five American Christian missionaries slain by members of an Amazon tribe in 1956”… (So if the movie were based on a not true story then a Sunday School lesson could be fairly criticized. This is the story of  Christian missionaries sharing Christ and getting killed. It seemed important to the story to me that faith work its way in there at times. This makes as much sense as critiquing Glory Road with the same approach. This ersatz basketball adventure is really a thinly disguised affirmative action lesson in racism, courage, and the insensitivity of whites in the sixties. Glory Road is based on the true story of the Texas Western basketball team. End of the Spear is based on the true story of five missionaries. You can hate their mission or their methods but that doesn’t change what the bleepin’ story is about. Whew…I feel better. Next reviewer please.)

E! Online wrote “There are also some slayings, which are not met with retribution from the good missionaries – the savages aren’t “ready for heaven” yet, you see –  and that’s the big message. In this particular tale, turning the other cheek, while lovely, is heavy on the sincerity and light on the subtlety–and it’s a relief when the End finally comes. (I think the  “good missionaries” is a cheap drive-by  shot. Again, whether you agree with the missionaries or not they did put their lives at risk for a cause and they did not seek retribution. Should it be surprising to anyone that a Christian missionary would believe that Jesus is the big message and the way to salvation? That has not been a hidden agenda and, again, that happens to be the theme of this particular story. I thought the line about “turning the other cheek, while lovely” was condescending but amusing.  Perhaps the Sermon on the Mount could be reworked to reward such a noble idea. And Jesus said if,  “if someone strikes you on the right cheek, it would be quite lovely if you could possibly turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, it would be really sporting to let him have your cloak as well.” )

The Washington Post opined that “although the film invests time among the tribesmen, it never really explores the idea that one man’s missionary work is another’s ideological aggression.” (That would be a fair and interesting question. For another movie! This is Steve Saint’s story of his father. That story did not include Nate Saint wondering if his zeal to communicate with the Waodoni tribe was an “ideological aggression.” Trying to force that into this story would be disingenuous. Here comes my favorite review of End of the Spear. This one comes from Mark Holcomb of the Village Voice. Get out your bitterness mop and bucket…we have a cleanup on aisle four).

Coy crypto-Christian claptrap masquerading as feel-good ethnography, (Whoa…look at his gigantic vocabulary! I think I get what he means with this odd grouping of descriptive words. If I may interpret for my fellow Red Staters…the script is kind of teasingly deceptive and secretive in it’s message yet pretentious. But by definition ethnography is the scientific study of human cultures. I don’t think that End of the Spear every intended to be that type of movie. I think Holcomb might have picked a better fifty cent word for the finale) End of the Spear is part missionaries-in-peril potboiler – sans pot – and part Bush-era evangelical screed  (That is rich. And the award for most creative way to somehow work in a shot at George Bush totally and irrelevantly from left field goes to Mark Holcomb. Where did that come from? And why?) It’s the kind of oversweet cinematic Kool-Aid they used to force-feed us in Sunday school, a dramatic retooling of Beyond the Gates of Splendor, a documentary also directed by Jim Hanon that was marketed to churches. (Dude, sorry you had a bad experience with the flannel graph Bible stories but what does THAT have to do with this movie?) Both films tell the story of five American missionaries who were murdered by members of a remote Ecuadorian tribe while trying to establish contact with them in 1956, and of the subsequent conversion of said tribe to a less self-destructive lifestyle. But Spear is up to more than just grade-B jungle thrills, and its Davey and Goliath dogmatism (Okay, how could Goliath have been anything other than dogmatic? Just curious.) comes through as loud and clear as the sinister subtext behind its message of nonviolence—that the world’s nonwhite, “undeveloped” cultures continue to require prophylactic doses of Yank benevolence in order to survive and thrive. (I’ll bet he is still chuckling about working prophylactic into the Christian movie review.)

I can only speak for myself. I don’t view my faith as having a color. I simply have found a relationship with Jesus Christ that I want to communicate with others. I have no desire to force it on others. Jesus never did. His message was always communicated with love and gentleness. I wrote about the Unbelievers Bill of Rights in my book When Bad Christians Happen to Good People.

To be fair not all secular critics were nearly this harsh about the movie. The New York Times called the movie inspiring and several other critics were at least partially positive.

I thought that End of the Spear was a very good movie. It is not perfect. The story of forgiveness is awe inspiring no matter how much you might critique the script, actors, or production. Entertainment Weekly wrote that “the movie, which is atrociously scripted and edited, carries out the mission for them (the missionaries), turning Mincayani, a surly and handsome Waodani leader, from killer to saint without making psychological sense of either.” That conundrum is the very crux of this story. There is no psychologically sensible explanation for these events. There is an amazing and supernatural element to this story. Could I do what Steve Saint has done? Could I have remained in the Ecuadorian jungles and still desired to help that tribe like the wives of the slain missionaries? Could I forgive the man who took my father away in my childhood? Could I forgive my father for putting himself in such a position? Would I hold fast to the faith that caused him to do that? Those are questions I asked as I left the theater. For Steve Saint to forgive, befriend, and live with the man who murdered his father is an act of grace, strength, and redemption that humbles me. I think he has earned the right to have his story told the way he wants it told. As Eleanor Roosevelt famously noted, “Do what you feel in your heart to be right. You’ll be criticized anyway.”

 

 

 

An oxymoron is, as we all know,  a rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist. (dictionary.com). You have likely had a list of oxymorons delivered to your email box. Phrases like jumbo shrimp, working vacation, and my personal favorite…Microsoft Works.

But I would suggest the most incongruous oxymoronic term would be the title of a book by Dr. Constance Ahrons, psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of Southern California, called The Good Divorce.

“Almost 80 percent of the adult kids of divorce were doing fine and had made some peace about their parents’ divorce,” says Dr. Ahrons, author of We’re Still Family: What Grown Children Have to Say About Their Parents’ Divorce (Harper Collins), which expands on her previous book The Good Divorce (HarperCollins).

Forgive my skepticism but making “some peace” is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the so called good divorce. If “some peace” is the best case scenario of the 80 percent I wonder how dysfunctional the 20 percent must be. My personal experience with friends and with friends of my sons tells me a different story. Even in the so called “good divorce” the effects often are significant and leave life time scars. I had one child of a “good divorce” ask me to write a book addressing how you can recover from the betrayal (his word) of Christian parents abandoning their vows.

I was interested and encouraged to see that author Elizabeth Marquardt had the courage to challenge the idea of the good divorce.

Disclaimer…obviously if a divorce is inevitable it is far better to be amicable than bitter, angry, and vindictive toward one another. Having said that lets examine the following excerpt that appeared in the Dallas Morning News Family section on January 18, 2006.

In Marquardt’s book, Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce (Crown Publishers), she includes results from a three- year study involving more than 1,500 young adults.

“The day that I sat there, looking at the data for the first time, there was this amazing moment of, ‘Wow, all that stuff I struggled with – it wasn’t just me.’ ”

Ms. Marquardt, believes divorce is “a vital option” for what she terms “high-conflict” marriages which involve violence, chronic addiction or other problems. Children do better after high-conflict marriages end, she says. But her study suggests that children fare worse after divorces that end “low-conflict” marriages, in which parents break up because they feel unhappy or unfulfilled. As a result, she wants parents to think twice before these “low-conflict” break-ups, which she says accounts for about two-thirds of divorces.

I believe that Marquardt has hit the nail right on the head. Clearly some marriages must be dissolved. But it is the other two-thirds of divorces that are problematic. The hard truth is that Christians have embraced the cultural creep of the easy out marriage. I wonder if we really understand the vow we take on the wedding day. As comedian Margaret Smith suggests perhaps we should change the vow from “till death do us part into till my self-esteem grows enough to upgrade.” We read the passage from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians at our wedding nearly thirty years ago.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

We start out believing that is possible. Then life comes along and we start thinking such love is not realistic. Discouragement follows and the inevitable thought process about deserving happiness. The decision to bring children into the mix raises the bar even more. Too many of us are like Founding Father Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson simply cut out portions of Scripture that he didn’t believe. Jesus had some hard things to say about divorce. I wonder if we don’t just choose to “cut” those hard things out in application.

Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”  (Matthew 19)

I know this is uncomfortable for many. I don’t believe that divorce is the unforgivable sin. But we need to at least be honest enough to acknowledge that divorce will have an impact on your children. You are making a decision that can affect generations and the very DNA of your family. This is serious stuff. Don’t fool yourself with hopeful oxymorons.

 

If you could keep this post away from the charming Mrs.Burchett I would be grateful. I plan to add still yet another book to my burgeoning collection and she might question the wisdom of that. Something about the forty-seven books I have lined up to read next. But a title may have jumped to the top of the pile which is now accessable only by step stool. I came across a book entitled God’s Got a Problem. As the author of When Bad Christians Happen to Good People I can appreciate a title that smacks you up the side of your head. The premise is intriguing. This excerpt comes from WorldNetDailey.net.

• Clampett’s provocatively titled book, “God’s Got a Problem,” makes the case that the church today is headed in the wrong direction based on an upside-down belief system. And it proposes the emphasis of specific solutions based on the one prayer Jesus Christ taught his followers to pray. “God’s Got a Problem” deals with the problem God has both in the heavens and on earth, says Clampett. “The problem is not solved with current evangelical teaching, which emphasizes that heaven is the goal of Christian salvation while the earth and its nations have been written off by God.”
• “Our dying and going to heaven does not address or fix God’s problem,” explains Clampett.

First reaction. Dying and going to heaven will sure as heck fix my problem! So what is your problem? But I get his point. I remember a pastor saying the church was so “heavenly minded it was no earthly good.” Continuing from the review at Worldnetdaily…

• “The Christian church in America has become largely irrelevant,” says professor, judge, minister and author Earl A. Clampett Jr. “It has lost its salt and light. It has surrendered its witness to the world at large.”

I think Mr.Clampett and I are kindred spirits on that point even though I can’t hang four titles in front of my name. One of my growing convictions is that the evangelical church has been sold a bill of goods by the enemy about how to influence this culture. While I believe we must be involved as citizens in all levels of government, I am personally convinced the evangelical church has gone astray in our hope that we can influence the culture in a significant way through politics and pressure. Those tactics have a place as a restraining influence but real change comes from Christians rolling up our sleeves, climbing out of our comfort bunkers, taking our title as a follower of Christ seriously, and getting out in the real world. I spent a chapter in Bad Christians looking at how that radical group that started this revolution 2,000 years ago managed to change the world. They had no cultural support, no advertising or marketing budget, no Christian books, no Christian television (what a blessing!), no internet, no mega-tent churches, and no hairspray. So how did they do it? By living a life that was so radical and supernatural that even the secular writers took note.

The pagan emperor Julian wrote that the “impious Galileans support not only their poor, but ours as well.” The revolutionary teachings of Jesus about the sanctity of life was sacrificially demonstrated by the early church during two great plaques that devastated the empire during the second and third centuries. While the pagans avoided any contact with the sick and even cast them into the streets while still alive, the Christians cared for the sick even though it cost many of them their lives. That kind of selfless service gets noticed. I doubt that the early Christians wasted too much time working on papyrus posters about God’s judgment on these people. They knew through the power of the Holy Spirit that the message that needed to be communicated was most clearly spoken through sacrificial love and caring.

I have Christian friends who do not have one single significant relationship with an unchurched person. Not one! How can we be serious about being light in this world if we never venture out where it is dark? I look forward to reading Mr.Clampett’s book. I don’t want to jump to conclusions based on a title because I have been on the wrong end of that reaction. But my gut reaction is that God does not have a problem. We do. His plan that was set in place from the beginning of time will be accomplished. God can do it without me. But I would rather He didn’t.

Sorry about the late post today. I had to email Pat Robertson to revoke his speaking privileges.

So far…so good.

Perhaps I need to copy Mayor Ray Nagin on that no speak, no headlines directive. Yesterday the controversial Mayor of New Orleans had to issue an apology for his remarks on Martin Luther King Day. “I apologize to any resident in this city that may have been offended,” the mayor said. “That was not my intention.” Nagin seemed a bit surprised at the uproar over his comments that New Orleans would remain “chocolate” (predominately African-American) as the city rebuilds from Hurricane Katrina. Explaining his remarks today, Nagin said, “Unfortunately, everything I say today is scrutinized to the nth degree.”

I don’t understand how Mr.Nagin or Mr.Robertson or any celebrity can be surprised about their remarks being scrutinized. While I have been more than a little dismayed at some of Pat Robertson’s shoot from the hip comments I do respect that he takes ownership, apologizes, and seeks forgiveness. But I am hoping and praying that Robertson dials down the rhetoric a bit. He seems to have strayed from trying to communicate biblical truth onto the thin ice of interpreting God’s actions and intent. I believe that Pat Robertson means well. But I would remind him (and myself in the process) of the following truth.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
       neither are your ways my ways,”
       declares the LORD.

  “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
       so are my ways higher than your ways
       and my thoughts than your thoughts.

  As the rain and the snow
       come down from heaven,
       and do not return to it
       without watering the earth
       and making it bud and flourish,
       so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

  so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
       It will not return to me empty,
       but will accomplish what I desire
       and achieve the purpose for which I sent it  (Isaiah 55 NIV)

If I could figure out God then He would be a small God indeed. He is not. So I will be content to dwell on the last part of that passage and attempt to proclaim the Word of God to a hurting world, knowing that it will achieve His purpose.

I also respect Mayor Nagin for immediately stepping up to the plate and seeking forgiveness. It was my contention from day one that such an action from Joel and Victoria Osteen would have tempered the backlash considerably. Mr.Nagin also judged  the intent of the Almighty (see yesterday’s post) and he confessed that was inappropriate. I was mostly saddened by the fact that the comment came on a day when the desire to remain “chocolate” or “vanilla” is most unseemly. Martin Luther King’s famous dream was filling the airwaves even as Nagin made his comments.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”

If I may add my dream to the famous words of Dr.King. I have a dream that the body of Christ will someday become the hospital for racial healing. That Sunday mornings will not have “chocolate” houses of worship and “vanilla” houses of worship. I have a dream that we will come to truly understand the words of the Apostle John.

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

There won’t be a “chocolate” and “vanilla” section in heaven so we might as well start making the body of Christ a “swirl.” It would be good for us and great for America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Associated Press reported that New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin believes that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that “God is mad at America” and at black communities, too, for tearing themselves apart with violence and political infighting. “Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it’s destroyed and put stress on this country,” Nagin, who is black, said at a ceremony for Martin Luther King Day.

I had addressed this question in an earlier blog but I decided to repost it with a bit of polishing since Mr. Nagin has reopened the topic. So here we go…

Is God judging New Orleans for it’s rather obvious bent toward debauchery? Should we cancel all travel plans to San Francisco and Las Vegas just in case they are next? Some Christians seem to think so. A group called Repent America appears fairly confident that God spoke when Katrina ravaged New Orleans.

“Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city,” stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage in a statement. “From ‘Girls Gone Wild’ to ‘Southern Decadence,’ New Orleans was a city that opened its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. May it never be the same.”

Rev. Bill Shanks, pastor of a New Orleans church, has warned people that unless Christians in New Orleans took a strong stand against such things as local abortion clinics, the yearly Mardi Gras celebrations, and the annual event known as “Southern Decadence” — an annual six-day “gay pride” event scheduled to be hosted by the city — God’s judgement would be felt.

“New Orleans now is abortion free. New Orleans now is Mardi Gras free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion — it’s free of all of those things now,” Shanks says. “God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there — and now we’re going to start over again.”

The New Orleans pastor is adamant. Christians, he says, need to confront sin. “It’s time for us to stand up against wickedness so that God won’t have to deal with that wickedness,” he says.

Messrs.’s Nagin and Marcavage and Shanks all seem pretty sure about the wrath of God falling on the Big Easy.

I have a definite and authoritative biblical position on this issue.

I don’t know.

When Jesus was asked about some tragedies that had occurred He did not establish blame…

About that time some people came up and told him about the Galileans Pilate had killed while they were at worship, mixing their blood with the blood of the sacrifices on the altar. Jesus responded, “Do you think those murdered Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans? Not at all. Unless you turn to God, you too will die. And those eighteen in Jerusalem the other day, the ones crushed and killed when the Tower of Siloam collapsed and fell on them, do you think they were worse citizens than all other Jerusalemites? Not at all. Unless you turn to God, you too will die.”   Luke 13:1–5  The Message

If Jesus had a chance to establish blame and did not do it then I am going to be extremely careful about deciding whether God judged New Orleans or South Texas or Florida.

I would agree totally with Rev. Shanks that Christians need to confront sin. But I would suggest that we need to gently confront sin from other Christians as well. We should never be surprised when sinners sin! Jesus wasn’t. He reserved His condemnation for the religious. Would God be more inclined to take out New Orleans because of it’s hedonism or would He be more likely to judge my city of Dallas for it’s materialism and greed and lack of caring for the disadvantaged? How can I know? Perhaps a Holy God is more upset in how we have squandered great wealth than in how some behave in New Orleans. Is neglecting the widows and the poor less egregious to God than Mardi Gras? I am not smart enough to know. But Scripture seems pretty clear we should be taking care of those in need both physically and spiritually.

There was another time when Jesus could have let us know how judgement is dispensed here on earth.

Walking down the street, Jesus saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked, “Rabbi, who sinned: this man or his parents, causing him to be born blind?”  Jesus said, “You’re asking the wrong question. You’re looking for someone to blame. There is no such cause-effect here. Look instead for what God can do.   John 9:1–3  The Message

I would suggest it is time we stop looking for someone to blame. I am not going to try to figure out if God is judging New Orleans or Florida. According to Scripture God sends rain on the red states and the blue states. Okay…that is a bit of a paraphrase from Matthew 5 but you get the point. Instead we should look for what God can do. What God can do is use the tragedy of natural disasters to show His love through His people. We are His hands and feet on this planet. If we are the body that is what we should be doing. What I can do is ask the question what can I do? We are too often asking the wrong question when we look to find blame. God can decide who deserves to be judged without my help or yours or Mayor Nagins.

 

 

Three oddly related news stories captivated me last week. While driving from Dallas to scenic Stillwater, Oklahoma I digested news reports about Roger Keith Coleman, William Harrison, and Samuel Alito. Only the last name may immediately register with you. My radio journey began with the Alito story.

I listened to Judge Samuel Alito being grilled about his views on abortion. Senator Dick Durbin incredibly and misleadingly said,  “I’m concerned that many people will leave this hearing with a question as to whether or not you could be the deciding vote that would eliminate the legality of abortion, that would make it illegal in this country.” Durbin knows that overruling Roe would return the decision to states, not make abortion illegal in this country. His comments were misleading at best, outright deceptive at worst. When they began to play clips of Senator Ted Kennedy lecturing Alito on his poor choices earlier in life (does he have a mirror in his house?) I became concerned about my blood pressure so I changed the station.

The next station was talking about the case of Roger Keith Coleman. Coleman was found guilty of the 1981 rape and murder of his sister-in-law and was executed by the state of Virginia in 1992. Doubt about Coleman’s guilt had caused the state to order DNA testing to see if the state had executed an innocent man. The reaction from the anti-death penalty crowd was swift.

“I think it would be the final straw for a lot of people who are on the fence on the death penalty,” said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington.

CNN.com reported on January 12th that, “a finding of innocence would have been explosive news and almost certainly would have had a powerful effect on the public’s attitude toward capital punishment. Death penalty opponents have argued for years that the risk of a grave and irreversible mistake by the criminal justice system is too great to allow capital punishment.”

Having had enough of that I changed again (by the way, DNA testing did prove that Coleman was guilty)

Radio talk show host Laura Ingraham was discussing a “Nighltline” interview with the self proclaimed abortionist from Arkansas, Dr.William Harrison. Harrison, now 70 years old, says he has performed at least 10,000 abortions — and possibly double that amount.

“I consider the mother’s life to be much more important than that little blob of tissue, and that’s all it is at that time,” he said. The doctor had conceded that this little blob has a beating heart by the 29th day and by 40 days a brain that’s directing the functions of all the major organs. The doctor still made it clear that he is totally comfortable with killing this “notion” of life.

Elsewhere during the interview Harrison unbelievably (and obviously intentionally) stated that he believes the women whose fetuses he aborts are themselves “born again,” because young women who thought their lives were ruined by an unwanted pregnancy have regained control of their lives. “When you end what the woman considers a disastrous pregnancy, she has literally been given her life back,” he proudly stated.

Thanking the good Lord for iPods I turned the news reports off but I could not turn off my mind. I shared the deep concern about the possibility of ending the life of an innocent person with capital punishment. Later that evening I did some research on the perception of Christians who are pro-life and also support capital punishment. This article posted at beliefnet.com was typical.

“If Christian anti-abortion activists were consistent and truly “pro-life,” they’d demand an end to the soulless assembly line that shuttles the poor–innocent and guilty alike–to death row. It’s easy to fight for a cuddly baby you’ll never actually see, but what about a corn-rowed, gold-toothed homeboy, or a skinhead with Confederate flag tattoos? You can scream “murderer!” at a women entering an abortion clinic, get filmed for the nightly news, and still get to the office on time. It takes years and real sacrifice to keep “the meek” from getting the chair. Some Christian pity and compassion for these hard cases who may be guilty of lots of things but not of what they were convicted of would go a long way in convincing others to take seriously the beliefs that Christian activists claim to espouse.”  (Debra Dickerson. Beliefnet February 28, 2000).

I will confess that I have struggled deeply with the issue of the state taking lives.  However, I believe that the comparison of totally innocent babies and possibly innocent criminal defendants is truly comparing apples and oranges. But the question of consistency is important.

Writer James Wood wrote, “for the truth is that, when the state kills, it is not some murderous abstraction but actual human beings doing the killing. People design the chair or manufacture the chemicals, judges sentence, pro-life governors refuse appeals, and people press the switch. When the event is over, the hangman goes home to his bed.  (James Wood New Republic Feb 21, 2000)

I would suggest that if I am inconsistent as a pro-life advocate then I can certainly reverse that argument to pro-choice supporters. If the concern is for innocent life on death row not to be ended then how can a baby who has done no wrong be killed? The only comfortable way is to call them a blob of tissue and convince yourself of that abstraction. I would also assert that abortion is likewise not some murderous abstraction but human beings ending the life of a baby.. And at the end of the day the doctor goes home to bed.

So many advocates argue that people like California gang founder Tookie Williams had too much to offer and should not have been executed. I am incredulous that the inconsistency of this argument goes unchallenged. We have no idea what the millions of aborted babies had to offer. I remember a political cartoon with a person on their knees crying out for God to send someone to find a cure for AIDS, cancer, and heart disease. The voice from heaven answers, “I did…but you aborted them.” Perhaps some feel that is a trite argument but we truly do not know what we have wrought in the name of our personal rights.

One of the strategies of anti-death penalty websites is to use Scripture gleaned from Christian sites to support their position. One common passage comes from Proverbs.

Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die. Don’t try to avoid responsibility by saying you didn’t know about it. For God knows all hearts, and he sees you. He keeps watch over your soul, and he knows you knew! And he will judge all people according to what they have done. (Proverbs 24 NLT)

I believe this passage addresses the children of God who don’t have a voice. It really is up to us as the body of Christ to be their voice. I agree that too many people on death row have not had a fair voice. God invites us in this passage and throughout the Bible to represent those around our neighborhood and around the world who do not have a voice. That could be the man or woman on death row. Or the victims of genocide in Sudan. Perhaps children suffering with AIDS in Africa. And for the unborn in America who are killed too often merely for convenience.

To those who are pro-choice I am prepared to make the following deal. I am willing to be consistent and truly “pro-life” in my views. I will accept that the death penalty should go away to make sure no innocent will die. Will you concede that abortion should stop for you to be consistent as well?