Month: April 2015

A Mother’s Response: Forgiveness or Vengeance?

Standard

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been tried and found guilty of playing a role in the deadly Boston Marathon bombings. I have not studied the evidence against him, but a jury has decided that the evidence implicates him as being guilty of all charges and he awaits sentencing.

His mother, interviewed on WhatsApp, unleashed a tirade in response. She refuses to believe her son is guilty of anything, she alleges conspiracy and promises vengeance. If there’s truth to the saying about the apple not falling far from the tree, then one could wonder if her son wasn’t just following after her example.

An innocent man killed and forgiveness offered

Walter Scott was gunned down while trying to flee from a police officer. Clearly the use of deadly force was unwarranted and the officer who pulled the trigger has been charged with murder. It is a tragedy for two families and a grave injustice to one.

Scott’s mother has ever reason to be upset. Her son (besides being back on his child support) was innocent, had no trial, and was shot in the back. However, in a CNN interview, while clearly heartbroken, she would not take her interviewer’s bait and offered forgiveness.

Which mother more closely represents you?

The contrast is amazing. One is a picture of beauty and grace; a real taste of heaven on earth. The other seems to be painting a path that can only lead to indiscriminate violence and more destruction. One is a solution to the cycle of violence and a way to peace, but the other is fuel for hellfire.

The world will not be made better by those who take vengeance themselves. I hope more choose the way of forgiveness of even a terrible injustice. Choose love over hate.

“Do not take revenge, my dear friends…” (Romans 12:9a)

The Customer Is (not) Always Right

Standard

Colorado courts are inconsistent.  Either it is discrimination for a baker to refuse to provide a product that goes against their own moral conscience or it is not.  The courts have ruled two different ways and this seems to reflect the mixed logic (aka hypocrisy) of the general public.

Last year Masterpiece Cakeshop was effectively sued out of the cake making business for refusing to make a cake that was morally offensive to them.  But last week the courts ruled in favor of a bakery that refused a religious customer who wished for a cake to celebrate his own views that offended them.  In both cases an intolerant customer and an intolerant business person clash over services, but only one was ruled as discrimination.

The Right To Moral Conscience

It should not become a lawsuit if a Red Sox fan refuses to bake a “I love Yankees” cake. It not discrimination against a person to refuse to make anything but pro-Boston cakes.

It is not discrimination against a person to refuse to endorse a personally offending message.  A gay placard maker should have every right to turn away Westboro Baptist if they ask for a “God loves Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson” sign.  An atheist book printer should not be legally pressured into printing Bibles or other Christian literature either.

The idea that a business must provide any service that a customer demands is absurd.  It would be plain ignorant for me to go into a Jewish or Muslim restaurant and tell them they must serve me pork.  It would be even more ridiculous if I were to take them to court accusing them of discrimination against me.  But that is essentially what is happening in these various cases.

True Love and Tolerance is Respectful

Tolerance needs to be a two-way street. If we do not wish to be forced to do things against our own moral conscience, then we should be tolerant of those who refuse to go against their own moral conscience and not force them.

Another blogger, a religious business owner who abstains from drinking alcohol, shared a story about how they dealt with a brewer that wanted their services.  The conflict between desired services and moral conscience was solved amicably without legal fees and any unnecessary drama.  That is the model of tolerance more people should copy.

I believe everyone has a right to their own views (offensive, unpopular or otherwise) and should have freedom to share them.  That, however, does not mean anyone has the right to force another person to violate their own moral conscience.  Love and tolerance means respecting those who disagree with us enough to not force them against their will.

“Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.” (Luke 6:31-33 NIV)

Those are some words that apply equally to all people. If you are against intolerance don’t be intolerant. If you love greater then love enough to not offend those who offend you. Love by the example you want others to follow and not by force of law.

Pie in the sky…when you die…

Standard

The expression “pie in the sky” is used to describe an impractical idea.  It originated in the lyrics of the song, “The Preacher and the Slave,” that was written to the tune of a populis Christian hymn:

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what’s wrong and what’s right;
But when asked how ’bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and Pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you are familiar with Christian hymns, you may recognize it as the same tune as “In the Sweet By and By.”  It was written in 1911 by Joe Hill as a protest song reflecting the frustration of those who were looking for something now. 

Hill pokes fun at Salvation Army street evangelists for their impracticality. His lyrics are cynical, self-interested and agnostic, but honest.

The critique of Christian evangelical efforts is stinging.

True evangelical faith…cannot lie sleeping…

Evangelical Christianity has earned a reputation.  It has frequently centered on condemnation of what those ‘outside the faith’ are doing wrong and yet lacks the introspection to know it is failing to live to the example it claims to promote. 

Jesus did more than sing happy hymns or preach sermons about future glory; he also healed, provided food, wine and urged his followers to give selflessly of themselves. The words of Jesus are reflected in this poem:

True evangelical faith cannot lie sleeping. It clothes the naked and comforts the sorrowful.
It gives to the hungry food and it shelters the destitute.

It cares for the blind and lame, the widow and the orphan child.
It binds up the wounded man and offers a gentle hand.
We must become everything to all men.

Abundantly we have received and gratefully we will respond.
So overcome evil with good and return hatred with love.
That is true evangelical faith.

That is the writing of Menno Simons (1496–1561) urging a Gospel that met real needs today.  It was put to music by Larry Nickel and would be much harder to parody as a message of pie in the sky only.  Each line can be traced to something Jesus told his followers.  It is a evangelicalism of practical value rather than only immaterial abstractions.  It promotes a faith of concrete action in contrast to words-only ministry.

A message that focuses on being a solution…

The mocking words of Hill point to a purely human effort.  While the ‘love’ of too many who profess faith is empty of real sacrifice and true empathy for human need.  Both are an incomplete message.  One piously over-spiritualizes faith while the other is dripping with resentment and bitter carnality.

The true evangelical faith of Jesus is bread today, shelter today and clothe today.  The example is a love of substance and help today rather than of just pleasant words.  It is so much more than impractical pie in the sky promises of something tomorrow.

Bullies Bullies Everywhere

Standard

Bullying is a serious problem.  There has been a popular campaign against bullying.  There are “no bully zone” signs around declaring intolerance for bullying or those who do.  It is probably safe to say that nobody likes to be bullied.

What is bullying?

To bully, according to Google, is to “use superior strength or influence to intimate (someone), usually to force him or her to do what one wants.”

The definition seems simple enough.  One might picture that overgrown brute who stole their lunch money in elementary school or the popular clique that picking on less fashionable peers in middle school.

However, I have seen the word applied to almost anyone who expresses an unwanted opinion. For example, the woman who expressed concerns about a sign (a topic of a blog I recently posted) and was accused of bullying and intimidation for it.  I have also heard a host on The View describe a subway preacher who offended Lea Selaria as a bully and laud her as a hero.

But is it really bullying to express an unpopular opinion? 

It seems to me it is more bullying to shout a person down or to encourage others to gang up on a person for sharing their opinion.  Sure, maybe someone does offend us.  True, we may want to enjoy bacon without guilt and do not enjoy being called a sinner.  Yet, does our being offended make it right to bully them into silence?

The label “bully” seems to be used to bully people who share unpopular opinions.  Those labeled as bullies seem to be fair game to be shamed, humiliated and ostracized by the group.  It would seem bullying is only wrong when enough people disagree with an opinion or behavior, but not when they do the same and worse to the accused bully.

Obviously, I do believe freedom of speech goes both ways and with that we are free to offend those who offend us.  Still, if we are truly against bullying, isn’t it a little hypocritical to bully those we label as bullies?

Group shaming of individuals is bullying and wrong.

Remember Justine Sacco who became  an international pariah as she was on a flight home?  Is it okay that a woman is subject to global scorn, threatened with violence, fired from her job and her life turned upside down for a sarcastic tweet about white privilege?  Is our being offended an excuse to attack and destroy another person? 

I don’t think so. 

I do not believe anything is solved by our answering every offense blow for blow.  I believe the best way to overcome bullying is with love.  It might take time to see results.  But if something is wrong for someone else to do then do not make excuses for doing it for yourself…

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”  (Romans 12:21 NIV)

There is time for confrontation.  I would not hesitate to stand beside a person being attacked, belittled and intimidated.  But don’t expect me to join a mob against one person.  Mob demands rarely help the cause of justice.