Jason Aldean's "Try That In A Small Town" and the dangers of conflation

 

Much has been said about country music singer Jason Aldean's recent song and accompanying music video, "Try That In A Small Town."  In addition to those who have pointed out that the courthouse in the video was the scene of a horrific lynching in 1927, and suggestions by some that the music video encourages racism and/or vigilante justice, there have also been voices on the other side of the cultural/political divide in America quick to say, "I stand with Jason Aldean."  Lost in the not-unexpected yelling back and forth by politicians and pundits, and the chiming in of regular folk on social media to proclaim which side they are on, is a technique used in the music video, and to a lesser extent in the song lyrics, that is as troubling as it is common in our cultural/political discourse: conflation.

conflation: The merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.

Which two ideas are being merged into one in this example: protesting and criminal behavior.

[Note: To a segment of the American population, an example of which being the stereotype of it portrayed for laughs by Carroll O'Conner as Archie Bunker on All In the Family, protest of any kind will always be considered un-American.  To those individuals, no conflation is necessary, protesting already is criminal behavior in their eyes.]

In America, each of us has a constitutionally guaranteed right to protest, both for and against, any issue.  We have the right to assemble to make that protest known, including with marches, speeches, sit-ins, and the like.  The same right that should have kept Civil Rights marchers from being set upon by firehoses, batons, and police dogs when they exercised their rights, protected the mass marches of the KKK a generation earlier (most of which were met, to our ancestors shame, not with governmental oppression, but with cheering crowds).  The right to protest is available to liberals and conservatives, and has helped advance causes dear to the hearts of both groups in American history.  While this is not a right enshrined in the Bible, it is certainly one that Christians should cherish, utilize when their conscience compels them to do so, and Christians should also be willing to protect that right when others seek to exercise it, even if we strongly disagree with their motives/goals.  {FYI, Christians should likewise be willing to fight for Freedom of Religion, when it affects fellow Christians, AND when it affects those who follow other religions}

In the song and video, however, images of protests (mostly after the murder of George Floyd, especially images of flag burning that have a very emotionally impact on many Americans) are combined with those of theft, looting, and street violence.  When these two ideas are put together like this, casually, the impression (desired or not by the creator of the content) is that they are in the same legal/moral category, that in effect, to be a protester is just as immoral and undesirable as to be a criminal, and as the song says, people in small towns know how to respond if you try it there.  Intentional or not, and I know nothing of Jason Aldean motives and heart, nor of the songwriter's, the conflation of the two ideas is very dangerous in a society that should value the right to protest, even of those with whom we disagree.

Let's be honest, politicians and pundits pull this trick all the time.  It is such a common staple, that if you spend an hour watching cable news you will see it over and over: two ideas/people linked together so that the one the audience doesn't like already has its stink smeared onto the one the politician/pundit wants them to dislike moving forward.  It is manipulation plain and simple, and it is sadly very effective.

One of the most dangerous examples I have seen of this in recent years is the near constant use by a number of pundits of George Soros as the boogeyman rich Jew whose efforts to support causes he believes in (as is his right) are tied to many a cause that the politician/pundit doesn't like (truthfully or not), allowing the despicable age old "rich Jews are secretly running the world" trope to do its work.  The audience is left angry at the idea/cause in question and wanting to oppose it because the pundit has left the impression that it is the puppet of a "rich Jew."  Conflation is a staple of antisemitism (and racism in general).

Another example occurred in 2019 when Founders Ministries released a trailer for their upcoming documentary which smeared sex abuse victim advocate Rachel Denhollander with images/audio that suggested she was part of a "godless conspiracy" {see my post on this, "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}

What am I hoping for?  Perhaps a more honest discourse, a bit more integrity from advocates, less anger from the people who are being manipulated in this way.  A pipe dream?  Perhaps, but if we don't at least try to be better, how can we expect better results in the future?  In the end, as Americans, and as Christians, we need to do better than this, we need to be willing to judge people and ideas on their own merits and not simply find a convenient way to smear and dismiss them through conflating them with something else we already dislike.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #24: Luke 14:23

 

Luke 14:23  NIV

“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full.

This example is a bit unusual in that the text in question does not refute 'Christian' Nationalism, rather it is a text once used to support the suppression of dissenting voices within the Church through military force.  In other words, Luke 14:23 was used historically on behalf of a Church Militant.

Saint Augustine is the third most influential person in Church history after two people whose names you will undoubtedly recognize: Jesus and the Apostle Paul.  Most of Augustine's contributions were massively helpful to the Church, but there were exceptions {for instance: his negative view of sex even within marriage still ripples harming Christian marriages to this day}.  The most dangerous idea that Augustine embraced was that it was fitting and proper for the Roman Empire, newly on the side of Christianity thanks to Constantine, to force the Donatists in North Africa with whom he contended on an issue of polity to rejoin the Church.  His example of a militant Church authority would be used more than 1,000 years later to force Martin Luther to choose between rebellion and his understanding of God's Word.

The Donatist Controversy predated Augustine's time as the Bishop of Hippo, having arisen after the great persecution of Emperor Diocletian {303-305, 1/2 of all Early Church martyrs killed during those three years} when those who had refused to worship the Emperor (risking their lives) would not allow those who had recanted their faith under pain of death to return to the Church.  Augustine sided with those in favor of forgiveness, hoping to heal the rift.  After a pair of councils in N. Africa failed to reach a resolution, Augustine threw his weight behind the Emperor's willingness to use the army to enforce reconciliation.

This is one of the first examples of Christian on Christian violence in the name of unity, it happened in the very first generation in which Christian had civil/military power to wield against each other.

Was Jesus talking about Church unity in Luke 14:23?  Hardly, that's not even on the radar when considering the interpretation of this parable.  And yet, Christians (whether or not they deserve the 'Christian' caveat) have been willing through the centuries to wield scripture as a cudgel, backing it up with force, against those with whom they disagree.  The Inquisition, the burning at the stake of Jan Hus, the slaughter of the people of Magdeburg, the City Council of Zurich drowning Anabaptists, the Puritans at Plymouth hanging Quakers, and so on, all following in the footsteps of the anti-Christian notion that faith can be compelled by threats and violence, that it can be protected or saved at the point of a sword.

In case you're wondering, the use of violence against the Donatists didn't work (it never does).  Four centuries later when Islamic armies rolled across N. Africa the resistance to this invasion was weakened by a Church still divided against itself.  Would kindness and patience have worked to heal the rift?  That's the road not taken, we'll never know, but the use of force by Christians against Christians most certainly did not.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #19: Matthew 26:52

The Vision of the Cross, 1520-24 by Raphael and his assistants

Matthew 26:52     New International Version

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

The History of the Church contains amazing highs of love, mercy, and justice, and horrific lows of hate, greed, and injustice.  As a rule of thumb, the more temporal power the Church has wielded, the worse it has behaved.  When the Church has had the power to put people to death, it has tortured and murdered in Christ's name.  

Prior to the famous vision of Constantine preceding his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312, the Church was a persecuted minority.  One generation later it began to wield the power of the Roman Empire, a change for the worse if ever there was one.  Now, nobody in their right mind would rather be a member of a persecuted minority instead of a member of the ruling elite, but those aren't the only two choices that were, and are, available to the Church.

In America today, 'Christian' Nationalism promises to give Christians the cudgel with which to beat down their enemies, enabling the Church to dominate society through the force of law whether its teachings are accepted by the citizens of the nation or not.  This proposed bargain has tremendous appeal to those who are scared about the future of the Church in America, promising to erase decades of change that they don't like.

But the promise is a hollow one, and also something that Jesus warned Peter against believing.  Having the whip-hand won't fill our churches again, it won't undo the sexual revolution, and it won't force God to bless America simply because prayer in school is once again mandatory. 

What it will do, instead, is make evangelism a more daunting task, drive yet more young people from a Church that in their eyes cares more about controlling than loving people, and offer up to Christians all the temptations associated with the love of power (its cousins in crime: lust and greed).

The sword?  It won't help you.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #12: Matthew 16:21-23

 

Matthew 16:21-23     New International Version

21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Why the picture of Shaq throwing down a dunk?  What's this got to do with 'Christian' Nationalism?  The average Joe off the street, probably at least a foot shorter and a hundred pounds lighter, has a better chance of blocking Shaq's dunk attempt, let's say a 0.0001% chance, than 'Christian' Nationalists do of having either their goals and especially their tactics, in alignment with God's Will.

Afterall, it is not God that must conform to our will, but we that must conform to his.  That being said, Jesus repeatedly declared what his purpose for his followers was: to constitute a Church (the Body of Christ), what its goal would be, to make disciples in every nation, and how they must conduct themselves to do this, through sacrifice and a servant's heart while utilizing the Fruit of the Spirit.  

What Jesus did not declare is that his followers would hold dominion over others, would subjugate the unwilling at the point of the sword, would gain and hold power by any means necessary, and would turn a blind eye to evil among them in the name of pragmatism in the process.  Not one of these goals or methods is acceptable to the will of God, and yet, throughout Church History we have seen them embraced, first on a grand scale with the Crusades {adding the blasphemous cry of, "God wills it!" to the folly of it}, then on a national one with the Spanish Inquisition, and sprinkled throughout were torture, imprisonment, and burnings at the stake.  All in the name of God, all supposedly to help God 'win' here on earth.  Tragic, foolish, unnecessary, and ultimately evil.

The current movement of 'Christian' Nationalism may be, thus far, less violent than the defenders of Christendom in the past.  And even though the trend is toward encouraging and accepting more coercion, less democracy, and violence, with some supposed 'prophets' even calling for a new American Civil War, 'Christian' Nationalism does not need its own Timothy McVeigh to prove that this path is fraught with peril.  One need only look to the Word of God to see if this is what God called his Church to do or how he commanded them to do it.

It is popular to declare the need to, "Take back America for God", but making the claim does not answer the questions: Is this God's will?  How do you know this is what God wants?  Even if this is God's will, would he sanction going about it like this?

 

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #3: Psalm 33:16-19

Psalm 33:16-19

New International Version

16 No king is saved by the size of his army;

    no warrior escapes by his great strength.

17 A horse is a vain hope for deliverance;

    despite all its great strength it cannot save.

18 But the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear him,

    on those whose hope is in his unfailing love,

19 to deliver them from death

    and keep them alive in famine.

Another failure of the worldview behind 'Christian' Nationalism is that it assumes that human power structures (from elections and lawmaking, on up to political violence and armies) are the key to advancing the Will of God.  Scripture proclaims the opposite: No human power, no matter how sizeable, can stand against God, AND God is not dependent upon any human source of power to fulfill his will.  In other words, when 'Christian' Nationalists proclaim that their team must win the next election in order to 'save the Church' or 'protect Christianity' (more on why those are red herrings in later texts) they are making a false assumption about God's power that shockingly limits the ability of God to work out his will in our world when 'our team' isn't in control.  

Likewise, when 'Christian' Nationalists begin to talk about the need to utilize violence, perhaps even civil war, to accomplish these supposedly necessary ends, they are not only attempting to overcome evil with evil, or turn two wrongs in to a right, but also proclaiming that God's Church, people, or nation (we aren't a Christian nation, but that argument for another text) will lose if we don't shed blood to protect it!!  God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, is supposedly incapable of advancing his Kingdom if this nation or this culture are not what 'Christian' Nationalists proclaim that they must be.  Is God so weak?  Is his will so fragile?  Not at all.

What are Christians called to do?  

Titus 2:12-13  New International Version

12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

I must have missed the part where God commands us to conquer in his name.

Sermon Video: Swords and clubs to arrest the Prince of Peace - Mark 14:43-52

 

They came with swords and clubs to arrest Jesus because they expected him to fight back, they couldn't imagine that Jesus would not resist, that he would willingly face their 'justice'.  Jesus' non-violent self-sacrifice has inspired many through the years, like the Civil Rights protestors who were brutalized on Bloody Sunday, March 7th, 1965.  But his example has been ignored by many others, both Christians and those claiming to be.  From the Inquisition to Crusader armies, Christians have often 'fought fire with fire', choosing power (and/or wealth) in this world over service and sacrifice for the next.  A recent example illustrates the point: On December 19th 2021, Donald Trump Jr. declared at a conference that turning the other cheek has "gotten us nothing" and thus must be abandoned.  Following Jesus doesn't help us 'win' so we can't do it.  Christians know better, imitating Jesus isn't designed to help us 'win' in this world, it is the path of righteousness, the method by which we glorify the Gospel's declaration of victory over sin and death through self-sacrifice.  The calling of the Church is clear: imitate Jesus.

What the 10th Century 'Peace of God' Movement can teach us about our country's embrace of political partisanship and violence

Rapid economic change in 10th Century Western Europe led to instability, which created fertile ground for those with power to press their claims for more power at the expense of the common people.  If I replace 10th Century with 20th-21st and Western Europe with the whole world, the gap between our own predicament and the medieval world narrows considerably.  In their case, the economic change was newfound prosperity after the doldrums of the Dark Ages following the disintegration of the Roman Empire.  In our case, the economic change has been far less favorable to most people, but rapid change opens the door to power moves whether that change be for the better or for the worse.

The patchwork of nobles that controlled Western Europe took advantage of the changing landscape to press their own dynastic claims at the expense of their family rivals leading to endemic small scale warfare.  As Diarmaid MacCulloch tells it in Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, 

"One symptom of the reorganization of society's wealth was a great deal of local warfare as rival magnates competed to establish their positions and property rights, or used violence against humble people in order to squeeze revenue and labor obligations from them; this was the era in which a rash of castles began to appear across the continent, centers of military operations and refuges for noblemen." (p. 370)

What was the Church's response to this violence and oppression of the 'least of these' by those who claimed to be followers of Jesus Christ, but acted in self-interested, and often violent, greed instead?

The Church threw its moral authority against the violence and greed, threatening to excommunicate those who failed to keep the peace.

Beginning with the Bishop of Le Puy in 975, local Church leaders organized processions with holy relics and used their moral authority to cajole the feuding nobles into swearing solemn oaths to keep the peace.  Those that hesitated were persuaded by the threat of excommunication to accept the Church's restrictions on which days of the year they could fight without incurring the Church's wrath.  In addition, the Church set itself up as an arbiter where disputes could be resolved without bloodshed.  This movement had the backing of one of the most influential spiritual leaders of the day, Odilo, the abbot of the Cluny monastery, and eventually popes became involved in regulating the peace agreements.  In the end, the Church was not able to eliminate the greed and violent tendencies of the nobles, but they were able to significantly curtail it and limit its impact on the common people.

What then are the lessons for the Church in our own era of economic upheaval and political instability?  

1. The Church needs to stand with the common people, not seek the favor of the powerful.

This should hardly need to be said, given the clear teaching of Jesus Christ on the matter, but sadly we need to be reminded that role and function of pastors/elders/bishops is not to curry the favor of powerful business leaders or politicians, but shepherd the flock of Jesus Christ.  Deference to the powerful is a betrayal of every minister's ordination vows, a sign of unhealthy priorities, and an invitation to moral compromise.  

2. The Church needs to withdraw its recognition/support of 'Christian' leaders/politicians whose behavior besmirches the name of Jesus Christ.

The threat of excommunication doesn't hold much water anymore, and a Church fractured into many pieces has difficulty speaking with one voice, but those in power have little incentive to change their ways when large and powerful churches gladly support their ambitions despite repeated evidences that those they support care little for Christian morality.  Such a reckoning is unlikely to come until churches eliminate their own tolerance for immorality among their own leadership {the plank in our own eye first}, something that sadly is all too common, but it is certainly necessary that they do so as the bond between a Church dedicated to imitating Christ-likeness and powerful people who ignore Christ's teachings, but still claim to be Christians, can only be a marriage that will stain the reputation of the Church.  While there will always be a charlatan like Paula White-Cain willing to embrace/endorse the rich and powerful for mutual gain, respectable Church leaders must walk away from these toxic relationships that benefit those who behave in ways that make a mockery of our faith by given them a veneer of legitimacy that their actions don't deserve.

In the end, Christians simply need to insist upon better leaders by choosing to not support those who demonstrate moral unfitness, whether that be in their own local church, their denominational leadership, or within the political party they support.

3. The Church needs to heal its own divisions and rivalries to allow it to speak with more moral authority.

This is, of course, the hardest of the three.  There are significant portions of the Church today who identify with liberal politicians/causes, and significant portions of the Church today who identify with conservative politicians/causes, MORE STRONGLY than they do with Christians who disagree with them on those issues.  In other words, for far too many Christians, politics comes first.  It is difficult for many liberal Christians to see conservative Christians as genuine believers, and vice versa.  The question: "Do you profess the risen Lord as Savior?" has been replaced as a test of faith with, "What is your position on Immigration?" {for example}  That this is unhealthy for the Church should be evident to both sides, but the solution to it is not going to be easy.  Here it is: We need to care more about unity in Christ than we do about winning elections.  We need to share the Gospel of Jesus to the Lost more passionately than we argue about the latest political scandal on social media.

What is the solution to America's growing descent into partisanship and political violence?  A Church that utilizes it own moral authority on behalf of the 'least of these', refuses to excuse immoral behavior on the part of leaders for the sake of power, and is willing to restore the Gospel as the test of faith and fellowship regardless of the political philosophies of those who proclaim Jesus as Lord.

Why are our elected leaders continuing down this path of bitter partisan divides?  Because the Church has been cheering them on from the sidelines.  It has to stop.

  

The downward spiral of Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas

At a recent rally, noted author Eric Metaxas, whose book on Bonhoeffer is tremendous (Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy) called Americans who are unwilling to shed blood over the election a parallel to the Germans who stood by while Hitler took power {thus equating, at least on some level, Biden/Harris with Hitler's regime}.  "Everybody who is not hopped up about this … you are the Germans that looked the other way when Hitler was preparing to do what he was preparing to do. Unfortunately, I don’t see how you can see it any other way."  If you're not on board with Metaxas about the election, you're no better than a Nazi enabler!  To top it off, Metaxas sees NO other way to evaluate the current state of America.

I knew nothing about Metaxas when I read the Bonhoeffer book {like many books, I found it at the bookstore, thought it looked interesting, and bought it}, and knew little else about him until recently when he has become extremely political, militantly so.  {To the point of advocating killing in the name of 'fixing' the election: “We need to fight to the death, to the last drop of blood, because it’s worth it.”}

Eric Metaxas' American Apocalypse - by Rod Dreher at the American Conservative {Shared as a source for the Metaxas' quotes/video, not an endorsement.  I don't think Dreher's idea of cultural withdrawal (as the polar opposite of militant partisanship) is the path forward either; here's my response to his book: Fight or Flight? Self-Segregation is the death of the Church's Gospel mission  Dreher himself is, with some irony, far more political than I am willing to be.}

Here are Metaxas' own words from an interview when his book on Bonhoeffer was released: "Bonhoeffer was not a liberal or a conservative, but a Christian. He was zealous for God’s perspective on things, and God’s perspective is inevitably wider than the standard parochial political points of view. It sometimes forces us toward a liberal view and sometimes toward a conservative view." {On Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Six Questions for Eric Metaxas Adjust Share By Scott Horton on December 23, 2010, Harpers Magazine}

However the road led to this point where Metaxas' is on the precipice of violence for political ends, it is sad/troubling/frightening to see Metaxas ignore what he seemed to have known about Bonhoeffer, that being a Christian comes first before one's own political views, and especially the truth that God's view is wider than our incessant partisan squabbles.

This sentiment is extremely dangerous: “So who cares what I can prove in the courts? This is right. This happened, and I am going to do anything I can to uncover this horror, this evil.”  Partisanship does not require Truth, or even truth.  Not an acceptable Christian viewpoint {Christian Worldview self-destruction: A culture without Facts is a culture without Truth}

Eric Metaxas interviewed by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA {The interview where the quotes in Dreher's essay originate; Kirk likewise elevates partisan politics above Christianity and invokes God's name/will to further his politics}

Partisan Political Christianity is one of the Church's greatest stains, its most horrendous evils were committed under that guise (think 4th Crusade, Inquisition, 30 Years War, etc.}, but it is also 100% illegitimate, an abomination that bears no true allegiance to the Cross of Jesus Christ.  Jesus' kingdom was not of this world, and neither is ours.

That a significant portion of the Church in America is trending in this dangerous direction, hard, is clear, that it will lead to disaster and self-destruction is both history's lesson and the Bible's warning.  What Metaxas (and Kirk) are calling for, whatever portion of the Church follows, will be fighting against God, not for him.

Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me."

Exodus 20:7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.

John 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

The Dangerous Idolatry of Christian Trumpism We can pray peace will prevail, but we’d be fools to presume it will - by David French {David French points out the danger of Metaxas' words, and broadens it out to other calls for violence/war like the Texas GOP's call for secession.  Like Dreher, French is more overtly political in his commentary than I choose to be, but the warning of the danger of the path chosen by many American Christians is accurate.} 

Some Christians express concerns over ‘bizarre’ pro-Trump Jericho March Some Christians express concerns over ‘bizarre’ pro-Trump Jericho March By Jackson Elliott, Christian Post {Another related article, this one quotes Metaxas as introducing 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as his 'good friend'.  If that isn't evidence that Metaxas has gone far too far down this rabbit hole, I'm not sure what else you need.}

Eric Metaxas, Christian radio host, tells Trump, ‘Jesus is with us in this fight’ - Religion News Service {A further example of blasphemy/taking the name of the Lord in vain, by declaring that Jesus is on 'our side' in an election...The article contains a link to a story from the summer when Metaxas punched a protestor riding by on a bike in the face (Metaxas was not detained or charged for the assault, even though the protestor was detained then released).}

The insanity of a pastor warning of Civil War to protect a politician

The American Civil War cost 600,000 lives.  It should surprise nobody who is paying attention that America in the 21st century is deeply divided along cultural, political, geographic lines.  Are we truly on the verge of a nation-wide conflagration, a tinder box akin to America in 1860 on the verge of the election of Abraham Lincoln?  The answer to that question, while truly horrifying if it were anywhere near 'yes' {and it is not}, ought to be one of deep concern to politicians, law enforcement, and the U.S. military.  In this case, the threat of a coming Civil War was instead the rationale of Pastor Robert Jeffress, the pastor of 14,000 member First Baptist Church of Dallas, in his effort to protect a politician from scandal.  In other words, a Christian pastor has decided that the fortunes of a particular politician, from a particular party, is important enough to him to stoke the fires of internecine violence.
{To watch Pastor Jeffress make this claim, watch the following clip from Fox and Friends, the quote is at the 2:31 mark.  As always, my point is not the larger political issue; my objection is to a pastor who represents the Church choosing to act in this manner.  Whether you agree with him or not on the political issue ought to be beside the point (that it isn't for many is a further symptom of the sickness)}
To those who study history, the danger of equating the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the realms of men, ought to be apparent.  This is not the first time that the very public profile of Pastor Jeffress has raised red flags {two of those previous episodes were written about here: Commercialism and Politics interrupt worship at a Baptist Church and Assassinations, Pastor Jeffress, and Romans 13 }  It doesn't matter which politician is being defended, nor which party is being supported, because the long-term entanglement of Church and State is always an unequal marriage.  Also, the role of a pastor, a sacred trust requiring the utmost integrity, cannot withstand being utilized as a prop to achieve ends outside of the Church. 
And now we have Pastor Jeffress, who is on TV regularly defending his chosen politician {just as other pastors who chose other politicians in the past, equally disastrously, and equally offensive to the Church}, choosing to up the ante by feeding into the fringe element in the country who would welcome a violent confrontation with their political enemies.  It is dangerous, it is reckless, and it is far beneath the dignity that ought to be connected with being a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

White Supremacy is not a "hoax" (sorry Tucker Carlson)

How many acts of domestic terrorism, how many mass murders, does it take for a problem to be "real"?

"Its actually not a real problem in America...This is a hoax...They're making this up..."  These were the words of political pundit for Fox News, Tucker Carlson, on his show on August 6th, two days after the mass shooting in El Paso that killed 22 people who were targeted because of their race by a young man who subscribed to White Nationalist ideology.  {Fox News host Tucker Carlson says white supremacy is ‘not a real problem in America’}  To give Tucker Carlson the benefit of the doubt (whether his past actions/words deserve it or not), it seems that he was trying to make the case that there are more important/significant problems in America today than white supremacy.  And while terrorism of any kind has never been high on the list of causes of untimely death in America, I don't recall anyone arguing after 9/11 that Islamic jihadist terrorism was not a big deal for America (even with the Muslim population in America below 1%).  It was easy to get on board with fighting against Islamic jihadists, after all, they lived elsewhere and didn't look like us, to combat them was a military issue that didn't require us to look in the mirror and ask hard questions.  {At least not early on, war tends to result in hard moral questions whether we want it to or not}  The reason for Tucker Carlson's assertion that white supremacy is a "hoax" was also clearly expressed, he believes that treating it like an actual problem in America would be bad politically for those he supports.  His decision to downplay the threat of white supremacy was not a moral decision, but a political one.  Also, to say that a problem isn't the "most important" one as a way of dismissing it, is both illogical and an act of moral cowardice.  To those affected by this most recent example of white supremacy which resulted in violence, it does little good to point out that heart disease kills more Americans each year.  Evil is still evil, even if there are greater threats and fears in this world.  {This is the inherent flaw in the argument made by Neil DeGrasse Tyson for which he was roundly criticized: Critics say Neil deGrasse Tyson should ‘stick to astrophysics’ after his tweets about mass shootings  Also, accident are not morally equivalent to purposeful acts.}   And while I could point to other instances of sin that are more prevalent in the American Church (pride, materialism, and sexual immorality certainly outnumber racism by sheer volume), and within American society in general, how does that in any way diminish the fact that racism/white supremacy is by all statistical measure a problem that is currently growing not shrinking?
I will choose to not address the political ramifications of our society treating white supremacy like a real problem (in other words, whether or not Tucker Carlson is correct in his fear of its impact upon the side he wants to win), for my primary concern is NOT politics, but morality.  From that perspective, white racism and its natural final manifestation, white supremacy, has always been a deadly threat to the American Church.  As a nation that has always had a self-avowed Christian majority, and still does, things which are detrimental to the Church are also likely to be detrimental to the United States.  From how the first settlers interacted with the American Indian population, to the arrival of the first African slaves, the American colonies and later United States of America, have always struggled with the pervasive sin of treating people unlike ourselves as an "other" to be disregarded, mistreated, and even exterminated.  That these faults are not unique to any particular race or nation does not make them any less corrosive and dangerous to the people who make up this nation. 
While better healthcare for those suffering with mental illnesses would benefit the nation greatly, that is not the root of racism/white supremacy.  For the vast majority of those suffering from mental illness have never been violent.  Southern slave owners were not mentally ill, they were racists choosing to commit evil acts.  When the Klan was able to organize parades at the beginning of the 20th century attended by a hundred thousand people, it was not an outbreak of mental illness, but immorality.  Nearly all of those who hate others based upon how they look or where they are from do not suffer from a mental illness, they have chosen to embrace evil.  Some of those who lash out in violence might also suffer from a mental illness, but the true danger of this ideology is far more mundane, and far more difficult to treat than an illness.  Hate is rarely a mental illness, it is a darkness in the human heart that requires a spiritual cure.
Hate is real.  Racism is real.  Anti-Semitism is real.  White Supremacy is real.  When pushed to a dark corner, or exiled from the mainstream, they regroup and return again.  Chants of "Never again" cannot stop them, for they thrive in the fallen human heart.  If we are to minimize them, protect the innocent, and even rescue some of those in their thrall, we must first acknowledge how very real they are. 


I have written about the danger of racism in connection with Christianity on a number of occasions:
White Supremacy and White Nationalism are an Abomination to the Church

The Church: The most diverse organization in the history of the world

If you have a problem with Christians who don't look like you

There are no racists at the Cross

Why we can never allow "them" to be singled out

After another mass shooting, what can be said?

Update: This post was originally written in August of 2019 after mass shootings occurred on consecutive days: The El Paso, Texas Walmart shooting that killed 23 people and wounded 22 more, and the Dayton, Ohio shooting that killed 9 and wounded 17 more.  It has been updated, today (10/26/23) while the mass murder in Lewiston, Maine is still at large, having killed 18 last night and wounded at least 30 more.  However, this same lament could have been reposted after Monterey Park, CA (1/21/23, 12 killed), Uvalde, TX (5/24/22, 22 killed), Buffalo, NY (5/14/22, 10 killed), San Jose, CA (5/26/21, 10 killed), or Boulder, CO (5/22/21, 10 killed), that is if we're only listing the massacres where ten or more were murdered here in America since August of 2019.

On many issues, I am a realistic optimist, that is, I believe that things can get better with hard work, support systems, collaboration, prayer, and the grace of God.  However, I don't have any illusions about human nature changing, nor hopes that we can put an end to violence whether we're talking about an individual harming one person or a war ravaging a whole country, and honestly, I don't have any real hope that anything will change for the better on this issue of mass violence in my lifetime.  

Perhaps God will be pour out his grace upon us and help us with the mess that we've created, short of that I can't see how any progress other than that which is local and limited can be made (that level of matters enough to be worthy striving for, we all should at least be willing to work for that).  And so I pray for God to be merciful upon us, not because we deserve it, but because so many of us are crying out for deliverance.  

The original post is below:

It has been about a year and a half since I wrote, "If I say anything about guns", in which I expressed my desire to not allow my views and opinions (no matter how well informed or articulately shared) about the issues of America's culture wars to become a smokescreen that prevents those both within and outside the Church from hearing my voice about the Good News that Jesus Christ died to set them free from their sins.  In the intervening year and a half, the issues of the culture wars have grown more contentious, more polarizing, not less.  {Update 10/26/23: Things have hardly improved on this front since 2019, sadly.} A cursory glance at social media today showed several of those among my FB friends who have decided to post pro-gun memes in the aftermath of the two most recent shootings.  Rather than showing restraint in the face of yet two more examples of how one person with hate in his (I could say, "or her", but statistically this is a "his" problem) heart can murder at a rate of twenty people per minute (or more), there is a significant percentage of people who feel the need to defiantly defend the circumstances which make such rapid lethality possible.  This is not the first time I have seen this response, and not the only issue where the reaction of many is to defend their own position no matter the context.  In this case those posting pro-gun sentiments after a mass shooting are very conservative, after the next tragedy or disaster, it may be those who are very liberal defending a different sacred cow.  Such responses are a human problem, not a conservative or a liberal one.

I was sheltered as a child, I grew up in a rural community that was almost exclusively white, highly conservative on a variety of issues, and mostly Protestant.  And yet, even in that bubble I did not sense the all-pervasive animosity of the deep seated us vs. them mentality that seems today to pervade our culture.  This isn't the America I grew up in.  It is more divided, more partisan, more bitter, more prone to treat those it disagrees with as enemies, and more likely to resort to violence when things aren't to its liking.  A lot of things have contributed to where we are now: The internet, 9/11, 24 hour cable news networks, social media, Citizens United (the Supreme Court case allowing for unlimited political contributions, i.e super-PACs), gerrymandering (making politicians in the middle vulnerable, as the only serious challenge is from the more extreme wing of either party during the primary stage), just to name a few. 
Perhaps we are not too far along this path as individuals, and as a culture, to want to turn back.  Perhaps we can seek solutions rather than simply demonizing those with whom we disagree, perhaps reconciliation and healing can overcome hatred and violence.  I, for one, am doing what I can to help and trying to not be the person who makes things worse.  Trying to mold and shape the congregation I have been entrusted with, and perhaps my community as well, with the Love of Jesus Christ, one day, one person, at a time.  This is the slow and steady path that will be mocked by partisan zealots on both sides, it will encounter jeers of "cowardice" from those who would rather burn the village than let the enemy have it.  So be it, I answer to a higher authority than peer pressure.
Perfect solutions do not exist, they all have flaws, but the direction we are traveling in as a culture and a nation is not sustainable.  Either things will continue to devolve further and further into factionalism and hatreds, or we will find a way to live in peace, even if we are not in harmony.  To continue to do nothing about mass acts of violence (primarily from those wielding guns) has been morally unacceptable since at least Columbine, this issue, along with a host of other pressing concerns, requires true moral leadership with the courage to seek solutions (or at least attempted solutions) that, while imperfect, at least have a chance at making things better.  Where that courage will come from, I do not know, for we have seen precious little of it in the last two decades, and it is getting more rare by the day.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

{Update 10/26/23: Rereading this post actually hurt my heart, it was written before the bitterness of the 2020 election and the Covid pandemic, before the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent aborted reckoning with racism in America.  Four years later it is very hard to find more optimism than I had in 2019, with war raging in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, there are reasons to have less.  And yet, God is good, the triumph of evil is always temporary, it is always darkest before the dawn.  Perhaps my daughter's generation will have had enough of our folly, perhaps they will learn from our generation's mistakes.}

A 16th Century Attempt at Toleration within Christendom

While the 17th century is rightly remembered for the epic bloodshed of the 30 Years War which saw atrocities committed by, and against, Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians in the name of God (partly, but also propelled by rivalries for power), it is worth noting a little-known attempt at religious toleration, within Christendom, that occurred about 50 years earlier in Transylvania.  In 1568, the Transylvanian Diet (legislature) issued the Edict of Torda, under the direction of their king John Sigismund.  And although their fledgling kingdom was menaced by potential invasion by both the Ottoman Empire and the Hapsburg Empire, they decreed that within the kingdom, the right of Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, and Unitarian (Anti-Trinitarian, and thus heretical acc. to the earliest Church ecumenical councils, and the overwhelmingly accepted interpretation of the Scriptures; thus a non-orthdox viewpoint) preachers to be free from governmental harassment or threats.  And while the vast majority within Christian history would consider non-trinitarian views to be heretical, and thus worthy of opposition (a judgment with which I concur), it is remarkable that the Transylvanian Diet refused to allow violence to be used to further theological debates.  This stance of toleration contrasts profoundly with the war that loomed over the divided European landscape, and I know that those who fear heresy consider it to be a menace (rightly) to the Church, but we have also learned that coercion and force are not effective means of spreading the Gospel.  Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred.  The Gospel will prevail, not by force of arms, but by the power of the Holy Spirit working in the Church of Jesus Christ.  Should we oppose heresy and threats to the Church?  Absolutely, but we must do so with Truth, not lies, with Love, not hatred, and with Peace, not violence.  How the Church defends itself is of crucial importance, let us look to the example of those who would make peace, even with their enemies, even with those they profoundly disagree with, rather than those who shout for violence, especially in the name of Christ.

The text of the edict is below, for a decision made in the 16th century, it is indeed remarkable, and with little precedence.

 "His majesty, our Lord, in what manner he – together with his realm – legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same matter now, in this Diet, reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing, which hearing is by the word of God." - The Edict of Torda, 1568

If I say anything about guns...

As a minister of the Gospel, if I say anything about guns, whichever side I take, half of you will no longer listen to my proclamation of the Word of God.  You will dismiss me as either a socialist or a fascist, and allow your opinion about guns to taint what I say about anything else.  The same danger exists if I say anything about abortion, taxes, immigration, gay marriage, or whichever hot button issue next consumes our political consciousness.  As a minister of the Gospel, I take my oath to proclaim the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ seriously, very seriously, it is the most important idea that I could share with anyone, anywhere.  That being said, I've made no secret of my own decision to self-limit my public comments upon the political/culture war issues, precisely because I don't want to allow anything else to affect the ability of others to hear the Gospel.  There are limited exceptions, when a public issue impinges upon the Church itself, or the discussion at hand is what the Bible itself teaches about an issue, I have no issue with weighing in; hopefully in a constructive and God-honoring way.

Last March I saw firsthand the danger of treading close to this political read line when I wrote a post entitled, "God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality".  In that post, I wrote about God's perspective on human sexuality, not about American laws or politics, focusing upon sexual sin as defined in God's Word in both its heterosexual and homosexual forms, but one comment that I saw in response to my post was, "I used to respect this pastor until I read this..."  Although I was able through conversation to repair that impression, and I think keep that individual from ignoring my words in the future, it pointed to the grave danger facing pastors and Christian apologists all over America today, when we involve ourselves in anything remotely political, half of the audience are hearing our words with their own political rose colored glasses, and the other half are plugging up their ears in disgust.

What does it say of Christians, and those purporting to be Christians, that so many of them are willing to place their devotion to political issues above the Gospel, the Word of God, and the men and women called by God to proclaim it?  It says we're in grave danger as a Church.  There is no such thing as a Republican Church and a Democrat Church, but we've fooled ourselves into thinking that God's Church is really so limited, that God is on our side, whichever one that is, and against their side, that the issues advocated by our politicians are 100% Christian, and those advocated by their politicians are inspired by the devil.  We've cheapened the Church, cheapened the Gospel, and fooled ourselves into thinking Christ died only for people like us.  I say we have done this because it is so widespread in the Church today, I hope that I and my church are free of this disease; I've striven to keep my own mind free of it, and to keep such partisanship out of our congregation, but I'm not proud enough or naive enough to think that it could not infect my own mind or my church in the future.

When Pope Francis spoke out against the danger of the love of money and the need for God's people to have compassion upon the poor, he was branded a communist by loud-mouthed political pundits, and that antipathy toward the Pope was cheered by many Christians.  The problem here is, the Bible absolutely says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil and demands of God's people that they show compassion to those in need.  The only way to justify condemning such concerns from Pope Francis is through either anti-Catholic bias (i.e. condemn the message because we hate the messenger) or a rejection of what the Church, and Israel before it, have preached (if not always followed) for the past 3,500 years.  

We should not be overly surprised by such things, however, when Jesus declined to choose sides in the contentious issue of his day regarding the paying of taxes to Rome, it only angered further those who wanted to use him for their own narrow purposes, or condemn him based upon his politics.  Throughout the Gospels, Jesus remained focused upon his mission, the one thing that he needed to do that nobody else could, not allowing himself to be distracted by today's issues when eternity was at stake.

If I tell you what I think should be done about school shootings and other gun violence, half of you will no longer listen when I proclaim the Gospel.

If I tell you what I think America's immigration policy should be, half of you will no longer hear me when I proclaim the Word of God.

And so I hold back, not because I don't have the right to my opinions, not because I can't ground my opinions in Christian theology and a Christian worldview, but for your sake because you NEED to hear the Gospel from God's Word far more than you need to hear my political opinions, whether you agree with them or not.

Why the killing won't stop...

After yet another horrific mass shooting in America, this one breaking the "record" for most people killed in one incident, a "record" that continues to horrifyingly climb, talk will invariably turn toward questions of prevention revolving around issues of law enforcement, mental health programs, gun ownership, and safety precautions.  All of these conversations are necessary, and useful, but they won't solve the problem because the problem lies deeper.  Combating the inhumanity of man against his fellow man, is not like combating a communicable disease.  Education, treatments, and vaccines have a chance at wiping out a disease, and even though some diseases which were thought to be no longer a threat have made a bit of a comeback (often due to laxity in keeping the vaccinations going), there remains realistic hope that solutions are possible to even the deadliest and most widespread diseases.  The human propensity toward violence is a far different problem, and far worse.
Why do people commit heinous acts against each other?  The answer is simple: mankind is flawed; deeply.  This is not a new concept to those who are part of the Judeo-Christian worldview, for scripture contains the first recorded act of violence among humanity, the story of the murder of Abel by his brother Cain spurred on by simple jealousy, as well as ample teaching that repeats again and again that our individual and collective hearts are darkened.  The psalmists and the prophet Isaiah wrote (as paraphrased by Paul in Romans), "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.  All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one...the way of peace they do not know.  There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)  Making the same point, the prophet Jeremiah wrote, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.  Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)  In Christian theology this viewpoint regarding innate human nature is known as Total Depravity.  Its conclusions are simple: (1) All of mankind is flawed, in rebellion against God, (2) Nobody is capable of fixing this problem for themselves or anyone else, (3) therefore mankind is entirely dependent upon God's grace and transforming power.
We ought to do what we can as a free society to protect the innocent from those who would do them harm, but we also ought to recognize that the underlying cause is a spiritual one, not one of economics, education, or ideology.  Why do people kill?  Because their hearts are full of sin.  The only solution to this depraved state is the grace of God given freely to mankind through Jesus Christ our Lord, anything else is a band-aid on a bullet hole.
Pray for those who protect the innocent in society, but don't expect them to win this war anymore than the war on drugs, or the ongoing scourge of sexual slavery, the heart of man is too far gone to be restored by anything less than the power of God.

The non-Christian militancy of Jerry Falwell Jr.

It has often been said that moderate Muslim clerics and imams need to denounce terrorism and the philosophy of jihad that lies behind it.  This is of course true, but it carries with it the same obligation for Christian pastors and apologists to denounce hatred and other attitudes that are contrary to the Gospel when they come from those claiming to be leaders in the Christian community.  During recent comments to the student body of Liberty University, the president of that institution, Jerry Falwell Jr. said this, "I always thought that if more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walk in and kill".  His statement was applauded by many of the students in the audience, and he went on to explain, playfully it seemed, that he was carrying a gun at that time, almost as if he was hoping to find an armed Muslim that he could shoot first.  It should go without saying, but sadly it probably doesn't, that such inflammatory rhetoric is beneath the role of the president of an university, and certainly inappropriate as a topic to the student body of an university, but it also points to a larger issue where Mr. Falwell is misrepresenting the Gospel of Christ.
It is the obligation and right of law enforcement, the military, and government in general to protect its citizens (and by the way the non-citizens aliens in their midst) from danger, which may include of necessity at times preemptive measures when that threat is indeed imminent.  That is the role of duly constituted authority, from a Christian Biblical perspective, but that is not the role of the average citizen.  For the Christian, violence against even one's enemies should be contemplated with sadness, necessary to protect one's life or the lives of the innocent, but never gleefully laughed about, and never wrapped up in fear, anger, or prejudice.  It was, after all, Jesus who taught that we MUST "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".  It was this attitude, adopted by Martin Luther King Jr. that helped transform the racial attitudes of the American people, not the militant self-protection ideology of the Black Panthers.  What do Falwell and others who share his ideas envision?  An America where walking through a shopping mall or into a school you pass a half dozen people brandishing weapons, self-appointed security and vigilantes looking to shoot first and ask questions later, especially if the person in question looks like a Muslim?  This is not America, and it most certainly is not the way shown to us by Jesus who prayed while they nailed him to the Cross, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".  When Christianity has walked down the road toward violence and militancy, in particular when that those attitudes are mixed up with nationalism, we have known our darkest hours as a Church, we cannot allow the name of Christ to be associated with such things, for the Muslim among us is not an enemy to be slain, but a lost soul to be saved by grace, just as you once were before Christ saved you.

Another day, another mass shooting, is the world going to hell in a hurry?

If you watch the news, diligently, you will hear a story about a mass shooting and/or an act of terrorism somewhere in the world each and every day.  There will be a weather related crisis, or perhaps an earthquake, or a man-made disaster too.  There are plenty of things going on in a world with over seven billion people that demonstrate the inhumanity of man toward our fellow man and the corruption of human endeavors.  We could be pessimists without much prodding.  We could despair of the future and throw our hands up in the air and say, "Come Lord Jesus!"  Many Christians do just that, they're convinced that the United States, the West, even the World is spiraling out of control and the return of Christ is imminent because things are "worse than they've ever been".  This isn't a new phenomenon, it isn't particularly surprising either, but it is sad and unnecessary because by any indication, whether that be violence, poverty, life expectancy, responsible government, and especially the growth of the Church, we are living in the most prosperous and secure generation in the history of mankind.  It doesn't seem like it, not when ISIS is shooting up restaurants in Paris or new polls show that less Americans are going to Church than in prior generations, but it is true.
Our ancestors one hundred years ago, and especially further back than that, lived in a world that was more dangerous, poorer, more corrupt, and a lot less Christian than it is today.
Your gut may be fighting against that claim, you may not want to believe it, especially is you have a lot emotionally invested in thinking like a victim or claiming that the sky is falling, but not wanting to believe a fact doesn't make it untrue.  Five hundred years ago, to pick a random spot in history, the average person lived hand to mouth, always one bad harvest or pestilence away from starvation, and always worried that a marauding army was just over the horizon, not to mention pirates and their own rapacious nobility.  The average person was illiterate, had very few possessions, may never have traveled more than an hour or two away from the place where he or she was born, could expect to bury several children who didn't make it out of infancy, and aside from Europe, lived in a world where the vast majority of the people knew not the name of Jesus, let alone believed in him.
Today, by virtually every measurable statistic, things have improved, and not just a little, by leaps and bounds.  There are still pockets of poverty, endemic bloodshed, and resistance to the Gospel, but they're pockets now, not whole continents.  Africa has been transformed in the past fifty years, millions have been lifted out of poverty and the Church has not only conquered the animism that once thrived there, but is pushing back the frontier of Islam as well.  Asia is following suit, with India and China seeing hundreds of millions of people lifted out of abject poverty and the amount of Christians in their midst growing rapidly.  The world's largest Christian population will soon enough reside in China.  The Church may be declining in the West, but it is exploding in the South and East.
We have many reasons to be optimistic about the future, and many reasons to not despair about the present.  Remember, Jesus spoke of a Church against which the gates of Hell would not prevail, but if the Church is to conquer even the stronghold of the enemy, it will be on the offensive not cowering behind high walls and a moat.

I'm not a pessimist, not because I choose to be an optimist in the face of contrary evidence, but because my faith in the power of God agrees with all of the good things that are really happening in our world today.  The future is in the hands of God, and those hands are capable indeed.

For an excellent detailed examination of this issue, please read the article below by JD King.
Why You've Been Duped Into Believing The Myth That The World Is Getting Worse and Worse

When you know the little ol' ladies are praying...

I have a theory: God listens to those little ol' ladies when they pray.  How do I know this?  I've had a sizable number praying for me, they've told me they are and I know they take it seriously, and something that happened on Sunday night proved God was listening to them.

As I was walking across the church parking lot to go invite some kids from the playground to our Awana kick-off event that was about to start, I noticed a young man (maybe 20, at least my size) walking along the sidewalk toward the parking lot carrying a baseball bat.  In the parking lot stood a group of teens (3 or so of them, probably all 15-16) who were yelling a variety of profanities at the approaching man.  It was obvious in a moment that a fight was about to begin.  With plenty of little kids in the area, not to mention a busy street a few feet away, I reacted on instinct.
Now, I've broken up a variety of fights in my day, one can't avoid physical confrontations when working with troubled teens, but this was something new.  Within moments I was standing between two young men, both of whom were yelling through me at each other, and one of whom I was facing as he held that baseball bat in his hands.  Were the cops coming, had anyone called them, no idea.
After several minutes of telling both sides that a fight wasn't going to help them any, that the cops would be sure to haul of to jail a guy swinging a bat in public, the two sides drifted apart.
It was only then that the realization hit me that I had been face-to-face with a guy I didn't know who was in a mood to swing a baseball bat at someone.  As I said before, the little ol' ladies pray for me.
That young man went to jail that night, the cops hoping to diffuse the situation, and the teen, whom I know a little bit from playing basketball at the park, came over later to apologize for using profanity in front of a pastor; who knows, perhaps this crazy moment will bear positive fruit in the future.
Five minutes later I'm leading 30 kids and a group of parents in prayer so we can start our Awana cookout, what a crazy thing the ministry is sometimes.

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games movie was just released this week after years of sales of the trilogy of books by Suzanne Collins.  The moral effort made by Collins in her books, and in this movie version of the first book, are to be applauded.  The books and movie are a blend of Lord of the Flies,and The Gladiator, with a sprinkling of The Runing Man, Survivor, and The Truman Show.  The combination of Roman style gladiatorial fights to the death with modern reality television works well as a commentary upon our society's willingness to entertain itself with the misery of others.  Our morbid fascination with violence can be seen in the countless Youtube videos of street fights, the growth of the UFC and other extreme fighting shows, and the violence filled video games that children and adults love so much.
The emotional impace that The Hunger Games is able to have is due largely to its use of children as the fighters (as opposed to the adult slaves being used in The Gladiator or the classic Spartacus).  With each death of a child competitor our own innocence is further lost a bit unless we reject (as Collins hopes we will) such trivialization of life.  It isn't good enough to say that this is the world we live in; to throw our hands up and admit defeat.  As in Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Andrew Peterson (the Wingfeather Saga), there are things worth fighting for.  To defend the weak and the innocent against the strong is a noble pursuit, but to simply revel in violence for its own sake, for entertainment, or for cynical political purposes (as the government in The Hunger Games does) is to begin walking down a path that leads back to mankind's oldest obsession: self-destruction.