Sorry Haus, Not Voting Does Not Mean Apolitical…

Standard

‘Tis the season for conservative Mennonites to preen on social media about their apolitical “kingdom Christian” stance. These Biblical fundamentalists, with an Anabaptisty twist, talk about worldly politics more than many in the voting public do and never miss an opportunity to distinguish themselves with their rude apologetics.

Any more I try to ignore this noxious grandstanding display of religious elitism. But then I saw a video post, with a title proclaiming a change of mind about voting and featuring someone that I’ve run into on various occasions in my travels and as part of an online Mennonite discussion forum. I’m quite familiar with his long-held positions and this claim of transformation astonished me.

Perhaps he had voted in a mock election in grade school or something?

Anyhow, starting in general…

The Utterly Non-Revolutionary Act of Not Voting

Mennonites, like other Anabaptists, have built entire religious doctrines around cherry-picked Biblical phrases. The words “be not conformed to this world,” lifted from Romans 12:2, is used to justify everything from not driving motorized vehicles and dressing like it is still the 1800s to condemning military service and not voting in elections. That is standard fare for all traditional or Old Order Anabaptists.

But Fundamentalized Mennonites, unlike their Amish and Old Order Mennonite cousins, feel this unquenchable need to broadcast and announce all that they do. Ignoring the not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing advice that Jesus gave, while slamming hypocrites. Mennonite fundamentalists, taking their cues from Protestant fundamentalists, are all about political influence and religious apologetics.

An example?

The disdainful retort of a Mennonite gentleman to those who dared to talk about voting in his presence, “I vote on my knees!” This sanctimonious announcement, alluding to prayer rather than direct involvement in the political process, was met appropriately with humorous remark to the effect that crawling to the ballot box being an odd way to vote. But it does also describe the strange dichotomy, or rather the inconsistent application, of non-conformity rules.

A man actually voting on his knees

The grand irony is that this kind of political non-participation does not make someone unique from ‘the world’ as religious separatists claim.

No, in reality, over half of Americans of voting age do not vote.

Why?

Well, voting or not voting is a habit, they do not believe that their vote matters, or simply do not care about the outcome one way or another. So this idea that not participating in elections is some sort of notable stand or great sacrifice is pure delusion. Not voting is literally as much like ‘the world’ as you can get. It is not revolutionary. It is a nihilistic cultural default, a bit Gnostic, and requires doing nothing. However, unlike most non-voters who have no need to explain their apathy for the democracitic process, conservative Mennonite fundamentalists have a great need to spiritualize and broadcast their decisions.

Sure, unlike other fundamentalists, who do vote and promote political involvement, the conservative Mennonite variety proudly distinguishes themselves in other ways. But they still go to universities like Bob Jones or Liberty University, fundamentalist bastions, and pick up the Evangelical attitude to apply to their Anabaptist doctrinal defaults. So, rather than simply live out their faith, like their forbearers, they must be “in your face” about their views, constantly propagandizing and promoting their supposedly ‘Anabaptist’ or purportedly ‘kingdom’ perspectives, and otherwise making sure that you notice them. If it seems self-aggrandizing and obnoxious, then it most certainly is. Worse, they are completely arbitrary and inconsistent in how they apply these supposed “Biblical principles” that justify positions they’ve inherited, never seriously reconsidered, and want to ram down your throat.

How do I know?

I was one of them. I would argue my Mennonite fundamentalism confidently with my teachers in high school. In college, I wrote a position paper to explain my inherited non-resistance dogma, thinking that my take would be fresh. But, for my efforts, ended up with a classroom more fully unconvinced of non-resistence than they would be had I said nothing at all.

Anyhow, while most from my own religious communities lean towards conservative politics. A few got out of this Mennonite intellectual ghetto long enough to read a little Karl Marx, meet some Socialists. And, now, armed with this new knowledge, come back to their conservative peers with a superior attitude and a whole new set of empty platitudes, borrowed from ‘the world’ they claim to stand apart from, that require nothing of them. They proclaim themselves to be different, imagine themselves to be the revolutionary thinkers, yet are really nothing but a new blend of the same old political ideologies, tired religious dogmas, and general nonsense.

It was one such story of a ‘transformation’ that caught my eye because I actually knew the guy and know him too well to be bamboozled by his slickly packaged testimonial.

The Completely Non-Transformative Transformation

I’m not going to reveal the source. More clicks will only encourage them. But it did not take long into the apologetics video to reveal that the title a bit deceptive, when this conservative Mennonite apologist confessed, “the truth is I’ve never actually voted.”

Hmm.

So, I guess a more upfront and honest title, such as “Mennonite-born Confirms His Confirmation Bias,” isn’t propaganda-ish enough to sell the point?

Anyhow, to be clear, he never changed his mind, he might have momentarily been slightly more open to the idea of political involvement before reverting back to the Mennonite default position. And, sure, his political positions may have evolved slightly from right-wing anarchist and anti-government to being slightly more left-wing anarchist, definitely anti-conservative and even more anti-government. But, in the decades that I’ve known him, he’s always had this smug sounding “voting only encourages them” signature line.

What is truly interesting is that this particular individual?

Simultaneous to his decrying the violent and coercive means of the state, he had also worked as a government employee and profited by these means for many years. That’s right. This man who claims that voting is some big moral quandary, because government uses force and threats, had no issues with taking money obtained by those means for years.

And yet, somehow, to merely cast a ballot is too much for them to stomach?

If voting is wrong, if political solutions are wrong, then how isn’t his taking through this system is extremely wrong?

If he really believes that the government is illegitimate, that we should not participate so much as to cast a ballot, then he ought to do as Zacchaeus did. He should return all of his ill-gotten gains, he should pay it all back with interest to us who paid his salary, and put his money where his fundamentalist Mennonite mouth is.

But what is, by far, the most disturbing thing about this video is the shameless promotional for progressive politics it contained. While claiming to be apolitical. He pushed the far-left social justice agenda as if this is what Jesus taught. Confusing what we should do as individuals, as a church, with the obligations of a nation. How disengious an argument. How heretical a theological position. How contradictory with his own religious tradition.

In short, the kingdom of heaven, especially their conservative Mennonite version, does not have open borders and will turn people away for falling short of requirements. Scripture lists whole long lists of who will and will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (false teachers one of them) and this studious fellow would certainly be aware. And, no, it is not cruelty or indifference that keeps some out. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Kingdom has borders to keep unrepentant murderers, rapists and other abusers away from those whom they exploited. So this criticism of nations for enforcement of reasonable border policies, for the protection of the nation and those trying to escape horrendous conditions, is asinine.

Imagine that, a conservative Mennonite, part of a denomination known for their strict standards for entry (oftentimes over the slightest minutia of application) taking issue with a nation for taking some precaution and vetting immigrants.

I mean, as one practically engaged to a woman who needs to navigate our immigration system, I have every reason in the world to want the current system to be made easier. And, despite that, despite my own personal struggle waiting on the cumbersome process, I still completely understand and appreciate that we have civil authorities to protect citizens and promote peace. I love her, and my neighbors, enough to want to keep evildoers out. Her uncle was murdered in her home country, as was her grandpa, both good men, it would be absolutely immoral for me to open the flood gates so that their murderers could follow her in.

Ultimately, had this fundamentalist Mennonite commentator stayed politically neutral (rather than parrot a leftist ideological position while falsely claiming to be apolitical) I may have let the duplicitous transformation claim slide.

I’m completely okay with someone being apolitical and not voting if they believe that is what their religious beliefs require of them. But I am completely not okay with? I’m completely not okay with misleading testimonials and phony claims of being apolitical while promoting a political position. I’m especially not okay with the hypocrisy of saying the government is violent, therefore we must not cooperate so much as to vote, while also being on the take end and unrepentant about it.

This one was a little more personal because I knew the character making the claim and it was so typical of the fundamentalist tainted brand of Mennonitism that I came from. Mennonite Evangelicals love to distinguish themselves from other Evangelicals, both products of Fundamentalism, by pointing to their Anabaptist doctrines (namely non-resistance and non-conformity) as if it is something revolutionary when, in fact, they are often religious promoters of progressive politics who oddly also decide they are also above voting.

Voting bad, taxes good…

Okay.

Drinking the Kool-Aid of Evangelical Humanism

It started so wonderfully, a charismatic young leader blended concern for the poor and racial inequality with a Gospel message. Eventually this “Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ” moved from Indiana to sunny California where this social justice preacher, James Warren Jones, found a more receptive and racially diverse audience. He grew his following to a few thousand members, enough to gain the attention of left-wing political leaders, and hired an African-American preacher to further the social justice message.

Pastor Jim

Jones and his so-called “Peoples Temple” moved progressively in the direction of openly displaying their true Marxist intentions. Their home for senior citizens directly quoted Karl Marx, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” and drew parallels between this political ideology and Christian teachings. Jones became increasingly divisive, increasingly open with his far-left rhetoric, and increasingly controlling as time went on. Jones, the cult leader, preying on the urban poor and minorities, now pushed an idea of “religious communalism” and used various passages of Scripture to justify this aggressive push towards Socialism.

A ‘kingdom’ perspective

Of course, maybe some of you already know how this story ends, at Jonestown, where Jim Jones, the leader of this nasty narcissistic polygamous mess, ordered his followers to drink poisoned Kool-Aid. The infamous Jonestown Massacre, in the Socialist paradise (or rather a hellhole) in Guyana, totaled 909 dead, either by suicide or murdered outright, including a Congressman sent to investigate allegations of abuse. Jones was always only a wolf in sheep’s clothing, he was merely using a twisted version of Biblical texts for his political and personal ends. He was able, with this heretical blend, to lead hundreds of people to their deaths. And sadly, despite this sobering example, many still “drink the Kool-Aid” of social justice and end up spiritually dead having jettisoned the true Gospel.

Jonestown Massacre

Those who fall for the social justice ‘Gospel’ have indeed traded their birthright for a bowl of pottage. They, like Judas, have interpreted the words of Jesus through the lens of their worldly aims. They, like the betrayer of Christ, take the instruction of Christ, “sell all and give to the poor” as some kind of end in itself and not in the context of divine pursuit. It is not because they are far from Jesus. No, in fact, there is only a subtle difference. Judas may well have been the best of the disciples, trusted with the common purse, and able to quote the words of Jesus concerning the poor right back at him. And he was not alone in his confusion about the words of Jesus either. All of the disciples seemed to have worldly power and prestige in mind. They did not anticipate the life of suffering and sacrifice.

Do not drink that social justice Kool-Aid

The close counterfeit is the most dangerous. Many warn of the crude caricatures and obviously flawed copies of the truth. However, when they encounter something that appears, on the surface, to be the genuine article, what do they do? They let down their guard, may even praise the effort, and never realize the missing substance behind the effort. The substance, of course, being that the purpose of everything a Christian does is worship. True, following after the instruction to give to the poor, in the context of Christian faith, will create a better world. However, when turned into some legalistic prescription and for the intention of political end, like social justice, it very quickly becomes abusive.

But Jim Jones wasn’t the first to start to push a brand of Socialism and defiance against ordained authority, there was an Anabaptist cult with similar views. The Münster Anabaptists were the true radicals of the so-called “radical reformation” and are the likely cause of the eventual crackdown on all Anabaptists. They too promised ‘the kingdom’ siding with the poor and the peasants, but their “new Jerusalem” very quickly ended up a polygamous nightmare. This disaster is why the “non-resistent” theology won out. This is why conservative Mennonites and Amish have remained relatively apolitical.

Returning to the Vomit of Münster

Modern Mennonites, of all stripes, share a similar antipathy towards authority. Those on the ‘conservative’ end of the spectrum are defiant towards things like Covid-19 restrictions or anything that interferes with their own agenda, while those on the ‘progressive’ side stand against everything from the punishment of evildoers and even national borders. The only significant difference is that the conservatives, like most other conservatives, mostly want to be left alone to practice their religion. While the progressives would be happy to use government to enforce social obligations on their neighbors. Where the conservatives can be neglectful of their neighbors, the progressives (like their worldly counterparts) are enthusiastically abusive.

I’ve noticed many privileged Mennonites, raised in conservative Evangelical/fundamentalist churches, in reaction to their own former ignorance, veer hard to the left.

They were raised in Mennonite homes, lived in Mennonite communities, went to Mennonite schools and a few finished their education in fundamentalist institutions. Most of their lives, unlike my own, they spent in this Mennonite cloister, then they go to the big city somewhere and find out other people see a different perspective from the only one that they knew existed. But rather than apply a grain of salt, or show any spiritual discernment whatsoever, they swallow the newly discovered grievance narratives lock, stock and barrel. They cheer on, from their ivory towers, the “people power” of those disrupting their neighbors, ignore or justify the violence of those destroying cities, and think their support for Barrabus is doing the Lord’s work.

They are blind guides, more misguided than the Mennonite traditionalists whom they frequently condemn, condescend and criticize, and yet imagine themselves to be the true standard-bearers for Anabaptism. And they are, but Anabaptist in the same way as Münsterites and of the same spirit as those religious elites whom Jesus taunted in this passage:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

(Matthew 23:29-32 NIV)

Woah!

I mean, woe…

Leftward aligned, and “kingdom Christians” are less committed than their Anabaptist predecessors and yet making the same mistakes. They claim to be above the politics of this age, apolitical even, and pose as the enlightened minds, but are really lacking in introspection and this:

These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.” If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”

(2 Peter 2:17-22 NIV)

Few Mennonites actually read the writings of Menno Simons, but many are familiar with his poem, “True Evangelical Faith,” a presentation that orients the reader towards the earthy and practical ministries of the church, and some of the reason he is described as an “evangelical humanist” by various sources. No, he would certainly not support the leftist policies of our day nor was he completely aligned with the Anabaptist comrades in Münster. But this understanding of the words of Jesus too easily transforms into left-wing anarchist politics and is very often misconstrued as an endorsement of Socialism.

Couple this with the Zwinglian denial of spiritual and mystical aspects of what Jesus taught, common to all Anabaptists, along with the political ambitions of the historical Anabaptist leftists, who in their zealousness, overthrew the ordained government of a German city named Münster, and you can know where this ‘kingdom’ is headed.

Jan van Leiden baptizes a woman in Münster, painting by Johann Karl Ulrich Bähr.

The contempt for authority is already there, the loss of a truly divine orientation is already there as well, and now they align themselves with those rebellious against all authority and acting out in violence.

This turn towards left-wing politics, those doing apologetics for grievance culture, are urging the faithful to take a big gulp of the same Kool-Aid that was passed around Jonestown. It is the same spirit that led to the horrendous violence of the Münster Rebellion. It is not remotely Christian even if it uses the words of Christ as justification.

Judas too used the words of Jesus. He deceptively used the words of Jesus, “sell all and give to the poor,” as a means to admonished a faithful woman for her impracticality worship of pouring out perfume on the feet of the Lord. He, like a Marx-inspired fundamentalist calling ornate houses of worship a waste, told this woman that she should have sold the perfume to give to the poor. He used his position, as follower of Jesus and disciple, an advocate of the ‘kingdom’ as he understood it, to hide his actual political ambitions. For this smug comment he earned the sharp rebuke of Jesus.

Those lapping up the radical leftist vomit of Münster Anabaptists, in modern forms, will be worse off than their more-traditional Mennonite counterparts. Marxist philosophy is not compatible with the message of the cross nor is this ‘kingdom’ opposition to the established government Christian. They might be sincere. Many are misled by them. But there is no reason for me to suspect that Judas, or others like him who betrayed Christ and the church, were insincere. Had Judas been only a fraud, why would he have despairingly taken his own life?

Oh proud Anabaptist. Oh fundamentalist with all of the answers and no actual wisdom. Oh you Evangelicals who are all talk and very little understanding, who flail to the right or to the left every time, desperate to be relevant. Oh you closeted Marxists, with worldly ambitions, posing as agents of the kingdom. Repent now, before it is too late!

Turn Not to the Right or the Left

Every so often a quote pops up, at the right exact time, so poignant, that it appears to be a gift from God. And such was the case when this quote was shared on my news feed while contemplating politics and examining my own stance as far as ideological positions. I tend to be right-wing. I do believe that the role of government is to set some basic boundaries, look out for the “common good,” and stay completely out of my personal business. But I also see the folly of individualism, the need of communities and voluntary cooperation between people.

I see both right and left-wing extremes, both totalitarianism and anarchism, as unChristian and dangerous. But never had succinct words to describe why this is, at least not before reading this quote:

There are two kinds of ‘atheism’: the atheism of the right, which professes to love God and ignores neighbor; and the atheism of the left, which professes to love neighbor and ignores God.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen, “Those Mysterious Priests”

This quote hits the problems of both sides squarely on the head. The ‘right’ frequently takes their independence too far, they become neglectful in regards to loving their neighbors and in this have rejected God. The ‘left’ on the other hand, professes their compassion for the oppressed and downtrodden, but this often is nothing but human effort that neglects worship. Both the right and left are motivated by selfishness. Both, at different levels, are looking for freedom or control. However, the left is much better at hiding their lust for power and true atheism under a veil of altruism.

It is interesting that frequently, in Scripture, we see passages warning against veering right or left, like this one:

Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go.

(Joshua 1:7 NIV)

My guess is that partisan alignments, rightward or leftwards, take our focus off of the divine. Instead of being focused on Jesus, and theosis, we become mired in political controversy and tribes. It is true, we cannot serve two masters. And political ideologies, on a horizontal plane, will distract us from the vertical alignment. No, we do not stop eating worldly food or drinking physical water as ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven. Nor do we cease to choose McDonald’s rather than Burger King. But, as the Divine Liturgy reminds the faithful, “put not your trust in princess and sons of man in whom there is no salvation.”

A Christian Perspective of Government

There is a vast difference between the glutton, who looks to food as an end unto itself, and the traveler on the path of repentance who eats to be nourished enough for the days work. Political involvement, preferring candidate A over candidate B, is not sinful anymore than eating or any other choice. We are in the world, even if not of the world, and it is silly to pretend to be aloof from it all. But when politics becomes an obsession, when ideologies become idols, when we veer too much the right or the left, the look out. We imperil our own salvation when we turn to the political philosophy and economic systems of men for our help rather than God.

The Kingdom of Heaven is not a rival to any earthly kingdom. No, it is on an entirely different plane from any worldly government and those saying otherwise are false teachers. Sure, yes, the political and religious leaders of the time saw Jesus as a threat to their power, they were confused about the Kingdom as much as the disciples. But never did Jesus show any interest in overthrowing them. Instead, he acknowledged the authority of those who “sit in the seat of Moses” (Matthew 23:21) and told his followers to do what they instructed.

Jesus and those who followed him never once questioned the legitimately applied authority of Rome. St. Paul, even despite enduring brutal mistreatment at the hands of Roman authorities, having every reason to be scornful of them, instructed thusly:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

(Romans 13:1-7 NIV)

It cannot be spelled out any more clear than that. The authorities, in their capacity to punish evildoers, are divinely ordained, acting on behalf of God, and not to be resisted. To rebel against them, we are told, is to rebel against God.

Of course, this is where some smarmy Anabaptist ‘kingdom’ pusher will interject, to excuse their own topic and rebellious spirit, by saying “Well, America was started by a rebellion,” or “occupies stolen land” and go on to suggest this excuses or exempts them from applying St. Paul’s instruction. They, in their woeful arrogance, have appointed themselves to be the judge of nations rather than simply pray for their leaders and obey Jesus as they ought. And this is because they, like Judas before them, are duplicitous and truly more obsessed with worldly power than they let on. For them, the ‘kingdom’ is merely a front for political ambitions, it is so they can feel righteous in their contempt for what is ordained by God.

The idea of “my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36 NIV) and the refusal of Jesus to even stand up to the miscarriage of justice, should put to rest this notion that there should be a rivalry between the Christians and civil authorities. If Jesus even refused to stand up to their abuses, how much more should we be willing to respect and submit to what is truly part of their God-ordained mission?

Both the church, and government, are ordained authorities. One is established for our own good as those traveling through this world and the other is a Kingdom that transcends everything in the world. I have no problem with those who do not vote because they do not believe worldly governance is the right place for a Christian. But it is incredible hypocrisy that those won’t so much as vote will turn the teachings of Jesus into a political message and use this in confrontation with civil authorities. Who are we to judge another man’s servants?

Instead of competition with God’s ordained authorities, snide remarks or violent protests, try this instead:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

(1 Timothy 2:1‭-‬4 NIV)

In conclusion, those so delusional that they can’t fathom God using imperfect men probably should not vote. In their arrogance and delusion of their own righteousness they would be incapable of making a sound decision. Again, I have absolutely no problem with anyone who chooses to abstain from political involvement. The further along we are in our faith the more we will trust the means of prayer and leave our worldly concerns behind. But, that said, I likewise do not stand in condemnation of those who, out of love for their own families and neighbors, appreciation for their nation, participate in the most peaceable manner possible.

In This House, We Believe… [Insert Dogma List]

Standard

One could say, that as one raised in a religiously fundamentalist setting, I’m especially sensitive to the signs of this mindset. And, by signs of fundamentalist mindset, sometimes literally signs. Whether it be their fifteen passenger van plastered with “Jesus loves you” stickers or a sort of passive-aggressive message using a judgmental sounding Bible verse in their front lawn. This sort of display is their version of Evangelicalism.

This Evangelicalism, if it can truly be called that, has never really appealed to me for various reasons. No, there’s nothing wrong with religious expression in words. But, that said, this is not the “true Evangelical faith” that early Anabaptist leader, Menno Simons, highlighted in a poem that used the words of Jesus urging faith of action rather than mere words. It comes off as more of a virtue signal, arrogant, like the Pharisee praying loudly about his own moral superiority to the Publican, than it does real self-sacrificial love and true Christian virtue.

Are you convinced?

Some of problems with this sort of thing is that it can give a security of doing something when it is likely of very negligible value. No, I’m not saying that we can’t put our signs up and also minister in more effective ways. However, this sort of well-intentioned effort can easily be misunderstood and actually detrimental to the cause. It can also tell people something about us that we do not intend. Preaching and proselytizing certainly has a place, but this kind of signage is not a replacement for that and can also put an unintended highlight on an overly simplistic perspective.

Public Displays of Progressive Religion

There are many well-intended people who sympathize and support the far-left. The left does a good job of seizing upon social issues and creating compassionate sounding slogans that have broad appeal. There is no need to question the sincerity of those who believe leftist dogma. However, the dogmas themselves should be examined.

In my own community, a college town, there are many yard signs proclaiming the virtues of the inhabitants. From the signs in various languages telling passersby “no matter where you are from, we’re glad to have you as our neighbors” to the ever-popular “black lives matter” proclamation that has popped up everywhere, these people feel the need to signal to the world with their political platitudes. Of course, with political platitudes, there is often over-simplification and misrepresentation of complex issues.

This essay is a closer examination of the “we believe” sign and what it misses…

The mantra

Each of these points, while having one face-value meaning that most would agree with, is loaded up to be partisan accusations. In other words, if you disagree with their interpretations, disagree with the narrative that they accept uncritically, then you are the problem. They assume that everyone who disagrees with their sloganeering is a denier, racist, bigot, xenophobe, or generally hateful, and yet they themselves aren’t nearly as virtue-filled as they presume themselves to be and are often in closer alignment with the violent and abusive elements in our time than those whom they condemn.

The display of these dogmas is truly a sign of ignorance rather than virtue or enlightenment. It is a sign that the occupant is probably a leftist Kool-Aid drinker and not a free-thinker forming their own opinions based on the facts.

Let’s unpack these statements…

Black Lives Matter

An Associated Press story from 1997 cited a poll that indicated almost nine out of ten black teenagers said that racism had a negligible impact on their lives. However, if we were to do the same poll today, I doubt we would get the same results. What changed? Has this country actually become more racist in the last two decades or is there something else going on?

The implication of the statement “black lives matter” is that black lives do not matter to many of us. That, of course, is not true. Speaking for myself, I took the idea to heart that “content of character” matters more than color skin and try to treat everyone according to their actions rather than their superficial differences. I’m also fully cognizant of the past injustices faced by many black Americans, along with the continuing differences in outcomes, and this is all concerning to me. There is no denial on my part.

But the left does misrepresent the issue. The left denies that individual behavior matters. They would have us believe that the exceptions, where a black person engaged in criminal or otherwise suspicious activity and has a negative outcome, an anecdote, is somehow representative of “systemic racism” against all black people. This, of course, is completely racist and wrong thinking. No, if Barack Obama had a son he would not be like Trayvon Martin, he would be like Obama’s daughters who went to elite schools and live extremely privileged lives.

This popular assumption that police brutality is exclusive against black men is in denial of the many (lesser-known) examples of white people who died in similar circumstances. Names like Daniel Shaver, Tony Timpa, or Zachary Hammond, and many others may not be part of the “say their names” list, they are certainly not household names like George Floyd, but they also left behind loved ones and were potentially the victims of injustice. White men are, in fact, disproportionally killed by police when crime rates are factored into the analysis.

It is a huge disservice to the black community to tell them that the unfortunate outcomes are all about skin color and completely leave out other very significant contributing factors. The truth is that anyone engaged in criminal behavior, using dangerous drugs, and actively resisting arrest is at many times more risk at a violent end than those who do not do these things. There is zero evidence that a law-abiding black person is at more risk of being a victim of police brutality and, if anything, given the excessive coverage of a handful of cherry-picked anecdotes, black lives matter more.

The “black lives matter” narrative is false. Black men are not being hunted down and killed. Many black people are quite successful and would be even better if they were not lumped in with those few “bad apples” that are having negative outcomes related to their own decisions. What has changed since 1997 is that, for divisive political reasons, racial minorities are being constantly told that everything is a result of their skin color. The left has taken control of the black vote through fear-mongering and many well-meaning people think that they are helping to further the myth.

No, this is not to say that racism does not exist. When a troubled white teen, Dylann Storm Roof, murdered nine people, all black, in their house of worship during a Bible study, it is quite clear that racism is a serious issue that must be dealt with.

However, it is equally racist, and likely much more damaging, to play white savior, or to hold black people to a lower behavioral standard. The racism of lower-expectations is a tacit agreement with white supremacy and unhelpful. Racial minorities are not children in need of our special protection, they can and should be treated like unique individuals and responsible for the consequences of their own behavior like anyone else.

Unfortunately, the black lives moniker is being used to push a far-leftist ideological agenda. The organization Black Lives Matter is thoroughly Marxist and has little to do with actually addressing issues that lead to negative outcomes. Feeding black anxieties, thinking that we are helping people by making them feel even more different than they already feel, is wrong and racist. Frankly, once the thin veil of good intentions is removed, putting “black lives matter” on a yard sign is patronizing and pandering, it is a promotion of racial tribalism and exploitative.

Woman’s Rights Are Human Rights

There are many who seem to think that the fantasy world of “The Handmaid’s Tale” is somehow representative of the real world. Protestors donning bizarre red robes and white bonnets, ironically attack and extremely accomplished woman, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, on the basis of fiction induced hysteria.

Cringey.

Barrett, by reasonable measure, by being nominated to the most powerful lifelong office in this country, would disprove the narrative that women are being denied equal rights. But, because of her Catholic faith, and anti-religious bigotry, she is being treated as if she is unqualified and dangerous by those who clearly cannot discern between reality and a television drama.

This idea that women are being denied human rights, which is implied by “woman’s rights are human rights,” is based on the assumption that equality of opportunity should lead to equality of outcomes. It is an assumption that denies the reality that people are different, choose willingly to do differently than others do, and thus do not have the same outcomes.

In other words, if there is a wage gap between genders that does not indicate discrimination on the basis of gender and could be explained by a long list of differences in interests and performance.

More to the point, the reason I do not earn the same as a CEO is not anything to do with my height, gender, or race. I do not earn what a CEO does because I have no desire to enter into the hypercompetitive world of business, to climb the corporate ladder, and do as they do. Sure, I could claim that it has something to do with my height or what have you, CEOs do indeed tend to be taller than average men, but I’m also not a candidate to do the work of a corporate executive based on many other things and would be foolish to suggest that I have a right to their greater compensation.

Another idea is that a woman should be granted special privileges, like free reproductive services and paid maternity leaves, or she is somehow being denied a human right. This is contradictory and absurd. Nevertheless, it is also part of the sentiment behind the statement on these signs. The idea that a woman deserves extra compensation and should be entitled to more legal protections, because of her natural differences from a man, goes directly against the notion of equal treatment.

Women, as those having capacities different from a man, should and do have unique opportunities and privileges from men. That is good. Men should be required to pay child support if they are a party responsible for the conception of a child. They should probably also compensate her for the wages she has lost due to her pregnancy and their copulation together. However, a woman should not have a special right to be exempted from the results of her own choices. Birth control and other products that must be paid for or provided by others are not right.

But the bigger issue on the minds of many women is the abortion question. Abortion, by the left, is often framed as a women’s rights issue. They speak of a woman’s right to choose and yet neglect the true crux of the matter. Those who are opposed to abortion do not make an argument against human rights for women. No, what is truly at stake, the real issue, is whether or not the fetus (which could be female) also has human rights and thus legal protections. Much of the anxiety about women’s rights stems from a gross mischaracterization of the alternative view.

As a religious conservative, I’ve run into a few misogynists and some patriarchal abusers. Yes, women have too often been given a second-tier status and this mistreatment should be addressed. However, first the most part, women are held in high regard and respect even in the most traditional religious circles. People have different perspectives on what role people should play in society, some think a career or money is more important than family and relationship, some rare individuals may favor denying equal rights to women.

But, that said, there are many more who believe the unborn should be denied rights. An honest discussion about abortion would be one where it is accepted, as a precondition, that both sides are arguing for human rights and irrational dystopian imaginations remained in their place as cheap entertainment.

No Human Is Illegal

It is really strange that the same people who would flippantly dismiss rights for the unborn suddenly become extremely upset with those who believe that we should have border enforcement and designating immigrants by their legal status. This comes across, again, like the other statements, as being moral grandstanding and not a truly well-thought-out position.

The statement is really no different from saying “no human is a bigot” and, if applied consistently, would mean no labels with a negative connotation ever be used. But we know that the left has no problem with applying adjectives when it comes to describing the perspectives of those who dare to question their dogmas. Terms like racist, homophobe, sexist or hateful are thrown about freely, as accusations, with very little thought of the very real damage done to the targets. So the left really has no problem with using negative words about other humans when it furthers their own agenda.

Worse, the far-left, Antifa in particular, without a doubt, does use labels as a means to dehumanize. Any disagreement with their current position could lead a person to being called a “Nazi” and murdered. It has happened on a couple of occasions, a person peacefully stands up to mob violence is killed execution-style and this heinous act is justified as “killing a Nazi” and celebrated. If the elimination of hurtful terms is really the goal, then we should start with the accusations, oftentimes unfounded, that lead to human lives ruined by “cancel culture” Marxist mobs and all stand together against extrajudicial killings for any reason.

Mostly peaceful protests

As far as the term “illegal alien” used to describe those who illegally cross our border at night or illegally overstay their visas, we could call them “undocumented immigrants” and attempt to solve the problem through semantics. But, either way, an intelligent person understands the need for border security and vetting of those who wish to enter. It is not fascist or dehumanizing in the least, to make distinctions between legal classifications, there are citizens and non-citizens, legal and illegal immigrants, each of them has different rights given their legal status. Sure, we should most definitely treat all humans humanely, yet that does not change the legality of a resident alien.

Furthermore, as someone who has friends who would love to enter this country, who as a citizen has had to go through intrusive (arguably dehumanizing) airport security screenings and customs, I’m not sure why there should be special treatment for those who cut in line or disregard the correct process. The left loves regulations, they have no problem with onerous controls over speech or what a person can and cannot own. They dehumanize through their collective judgments all of the time. But then, suddenly, when it comes to a group to exploit for political gain, cries out “think of the children” or “oh, the humanity!”

Strangely, for caring so much about humanity, there is so very little concern about the son of a Presidential candidate with a laptop hard drive apparently containing images of underage girls and was recently turned over to authorities. It isn’t supposed to matter that this same left-leaning candidate has family financial ties to the biggest human rights violators on the planet, a country that dehumanizes ethnic minorities and others to the point of harvesting their bodily organs without their consent.

So, sure, maybe we need to find a better way of screening those who wish to enter our own country, but quibbles over language certainly aren’t helpful in that regard. Changing description or denial of the consequences associated with uncontrolled borders doesn’t make the problems go away or any less real.

Science Is Real

This statement is most likely in regard to climate policy and the Covid-19 pandemic response. It is ironic that those who want to claim to be on the side of the scientific and real would implore us to “believe science” as if to disagree with them is to be in denial of the scientific method. Although, as someone who has rejected religiously inspired pseudoscience and is alarmed at the increased popularity of flat-Earth theories, it is not that I totally disagree either.

However, I do digress, when politicians start to throw around words like “settled science” or “scientific consensus,” that is unsettling to me as someone who knows well enough that all conclusions must be questioned. That is science. Even physics, a hard science, was upended by the mysterious ways of the smallest particles or Quantum Mechanics. The simple understanding of the physical universe, provided by Classical physics, no longer works at this smaller level and there is yet to be a theory to unify the two. The point being that science doesn’t settle anything and a consensus is always something that changes as new evidence or a better explanation becomes available.

So, yes, science is real, but so are X and Y chromosomes and the fact that the unborn do not share their mother’s DNA. Those pronouncing “science is real” as a response to unpopular or minority opinions should learn how to argue their own positions convincingly, with science, rather than dogmatically bludgeon the conversation to death with tripe slogans. A person is not a “denier” for their questioning of the current models or opposition to those who wish to use their fears as justification for political policies that take away rights and are economically disastrous.

Disparaging a person as “anti-science” is not an argument, it is a manipulation tool, a slur, and only proves that the mean-spirited person using the term is trying to shut down the conversation. How quickly we forget the history of established authorities who did the same thing to the great minds who stood up to the status quo. A truly scientifically minded person understands that our understanding of the world is continually evolving and never ever completely settled. If anything, it is Big Tech monopolies, run by leftists, who are anti-science for their silencing of dissent.

In the end, pounding the phrase “science is real” is no more useful than a religious fundamentalist shouting “God is real.” Both statements prove nothing as far as the claim being made and, if used in such to way as to end a debate, only prove the real ignorance of the user. The people putting up signs with “we believe” have crossed over from science into a religious territory and are proclaiming dogma rather than proving anything of scientific value. They may think they are showing their superiority to dogma spewing Evangeli-cons, but are really only revealing their sameness.

Speaking of sameness…

Love Is Love

Love is love. Likewise, marriage is marriage. Those arguing on the side of same-sex unions being legally recognized as “marriage” have done a great job of framing the debate about the definition of marriage in terms of love. And, true, there is no way to quantify or measure love. So if marriage is indeed only about recognizing love, then so be it, let us deny no one the opportunity to marry anyone or anything they choose to love.

Nikola Tesla, for example, a brilliant man, loved a pigeon:

“I have been feeding pigeons, thousands of them for years. But there was one, a beautiful bird, pure white with light grey tips on its wings; that one was different. It was a female. I had only to wish and call her and she would come flying to me.
I loved that pigeon as a man loves a women, and she loved me. As long as I had her, there was a purpose to my life.”

However, marriage was not traditionally about love only and nobody actually has a right to have their feelings legally recognized.

I mean, there’s no reason for me to judge Tesla for his strange love of a particular pigeon and I suppose there would be no harm in the state labeling that relationship in any manner they wish, but should that make a marriage?

I’m not convinced that every relationship is of equal value to society as the only relationship that can produce another generation of humans. A biological male and female, unlike other love parings of humans, has the unique potential to produce children. Well-adjusted children are needed for economies to grow and civilizations to thrive.

Marriage was instituted as protection for women, who tend to bear the brunt of the sexual union and reproduction process; and to create a stable family unit for the good of children. Fatherless homes are a better predictor of negative outcomes than race. It is the one thing that links inner-city gang violence and suburban school shooters. Yes, absolutely, there are many wonderful single mothers, two men or two women could also do a splendid job of raising a child, being in an unconventional home doesn’t doom anyone to failure, but if diversity is strength, and science is real, why be a denier?

The one thing disturbing about the redefining of marriage is this focus on love being a synonym for sexual gratification. Marriage, in the Orthodox Christian context, was synonymous with martyrdom and denial of ourselves for the good of another. It is little wonder that so many marriages, based upon these superficial self-centered ‘love’ relationships, end in divorce. In the end, the traditional should not blame those who have further redefined the meaning of marital love. There has been plenty of selfish and uncommitted love to go around in their own ranks.

In the Philippines, a marriage can only be annulled, which is to say it can only be undone by proving (through a psychological examination) that a person was “incapacitated” at the time at which they entered the relationship thus the union is deemed to be illegitimate, completely null and void. That means, in legal terms, something called marriage was not a marriage and suggests that true marriage requires something more than a piece of paper. Marriage, at the very least, is not only about the feelings that two people have or have had for one another.

Love is love. But not everything called love is love and not everything called marriage is marriage. Take that to mean what it means. Or maybe words are only words and meaning is meaningless and everything is nothing?

Kindness Is Everything

Kindness, “the quality of being friendly, generous, or considerate,” is certainly not how I would describe many leftist pundits, professors, pontificators, and protestors. Like that tolerant loving woman who screamed at and flicked off Trump supporters before wrecking her car…

A kind leftist

Sure, kindness is something, but so is introspection and being a bit more conscious of the unkindness done in the name of kindness. This statement captures perfectly the oversimplification of complex topics that the entire “we believe” list represents. It indicates a lack of serious introspection on the part of those who have sympathized and/or support the political violence that has plagued our cities.

It is not friendly or generous to call someone a Nazi for disagreeing with you nor is it considerate to advocate and excuse taking from others. It is not kind to believe that anyone who disagrees with one’s own narrow perspective is intolerant, hateful, and deserves to be silenced.

If kindness were everything, then Antifa violence would be condemned, like the KKK before it, rather than downplayed or ignored. If kindness were everything, the knee jerk resistance to everything the President says or does would end. If kindness were everything, having a different perspective of when human life begins would not be mischaracterized as “war on women” or any other such slanderous fantasy nonsense.

In reality, kindness is not everything. Martial love, even redefined, is alway to the exclusion of others. Why else would we marry anyone? The consensus of social elites and established institutions has been wrong many times before. Science questions science. That is how we advanced. It is not dehumanizing to identify someone as a jaywalker who jaywalked. But it is dehumanizing to kick someone in the skull because they aren’t a Marxist thug. There is legal and illegal. Human rights should extend to all and not only those who have a voice to protest. And last, but not least, behavior matters.

A sign for our times?

Virtue starts with humility, not yard signs or mindlessly repeated mantras. Statements, especially those that come across as veiled accusations, are not an effective way to produce change. It is a religious fundamentalism in a new ‘progressive’ package. And may, like the old fundamentalisms of the past, be too oriented on religious displays or devotion in the external social realm and not enough on inner spiritual transformation. It is easy, on a sign, to proclaim love for the world. But very hard to treat the ‘deplorable’ neighbor across the street as a person with a valid perspective even if different from our own.

And that’s not to say that those putting up these signs are smug and sanctimonious. Not at all! Many progressives, my friends, are genuinely compassionate people and do practice what they preach. They were taught a certain perspective or values, it feels right to them, and are simply doing what they were programmed to do in the same manner of any other religious fundamentalist. But too often their repeated statements become a wall of ignorance and are, in fact, dogmas rather than reasoned out positions. A sign certainly is not going to convince anyone to believe as they do. So what is it really about?

Blessed Are the Meek

Standard

The word “gentleman” once described someone of noble birth, a man of the gentry, and thus one of good manners. Today the term is used for any man who is courteous, especially to women, and generally conducts himself well.

The alternative to gentleman?

I suppose it could be feral masculinity, an undomesticated man, a man who uses his superior strength only to his own personal advantage and is unconcerned about the good others?

But then again, a gentleman is not a man who is lacking in animal strength or incapable of doing selfish or violent and evil things. Rather, a gentleman is someone who decided not to be governed by their animal instincts and despite being strong enough to acquire what they want through force.

A young André the Giant

A gentleman is not someone without animal instincts and strength. Rather, a gentleman is a man of inner strength, one who uses this spiritual fortitude to hold back those urges to use his physical, intellectual or other carnal strength to dominate others.

The Dominion of the Weak

We live in absurd times, cartoonish actually, where self-designated victims use shame to leverage a social advantage and yet are not called out for this bullying behavior. The victimhood narrative, ironically, has become a tool of oppression and only works because most of the ‘privileged’ people are too polite to stand up to it.

In fact, gentlemanly behavior, like opening a door for someone else, can lead to accusations of oppression.

Umm, no?

And, that’s not to say that some gentlemanly behavior is inauthentic and merely a means of some men to manipulate women. Many have learned to “play nice” simply as a method of gaining advantage for themselves. Their polite public behavior is a social tool and their true colors come out when they finally get what they want. These are not true gentlemen, but are weak-minded opportunists in a gentlemanly guise.

It would be better that the fakers would dispense with the pretense. And, with the rise of feminism, many of these weak men do the same thing, giving up the mask of traditional gentlemanly behavior, and use the new guise of ‘woke’ politics instead. This “wokefishing” enables them to get in the pants of unsuspecting ‘progressive’ counterparts and has been the subject of some online outrage.

It is quite similar to those who use a false minority status, like Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug, and Elizabeth Warren, as a means to gain an economic or social advantage. Being oppressed is not what it once was. Identity politics is extremely lucrative for those able to exploit it. It actually means special treatment, a fast-tracked educational or political career without the normal merit based requirements.

In the current paradigm women and minorities enjoy both the benefits of traditional Christian cultural values, of care for the poor and protection of the week, while also browbeating those who provide those things. The odd part is that true toxic masculinity, cultures that objectify women and give them a decidedly second tier status, is now given a free pass by also claiming for themselves that coveted victimhood status.

President Trump can be cast as the victim. As can Vice-Presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, by those turning normal debate interruptions into some kind of affront to minority women. In both cases, by traditional standards, these personalities would be proving themselves unworthy of a leadership role. But when the oppressed rule a person can play victim and still exercise dominion over others.

Politics is a domain for the weak and shortsighted, not the meek and eternally minded…

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth

For years my understanding of meekness was off a little. I may have taken it to be a sort of spiritualized synonym to weakness. In other words, a weak person who keeps their head low and accepts their place of inferior status. The word, in my religious upbringing, was often used in reference to women by those quoting Saint Peter:

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

(1 Peter 3:1‭-‬4 KJV)

To many in my past that passage is roughly translated as “do not stand up to patriarchal abuse or we will brand you as a Jezebel.” To them it is a woman’s place to accept a sort of secondary status and these truly weak men, like the first Adam, are constantly blaming woman for their own moral failures. They want the respect of a leader while simultaneously being unwilling to take responsibility or sacrifice themselves.

However, these phony self-serving patriarchs should have continued reading, meekness and falling under authority is not only for women, this is addressed to all:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

(1 Peter 3:15‭-‬16 KJV)

A man who does not fall under authority, who does not lead with a meek and respectful spirit, no matter what he claims to be, is not a Christian leader. A Christian leader follows after the example of Christ Jesus who, in meekness, took the sins of the world on his own shoulders, suffered and died. He was willing to be mistreated and humiliated, not only for sake of his disciples, but also (and perhaps especially) for his abusers.

John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan), in “Green Mile,” a picture of meekness?

Only the truly strong can be meek. A weak person uses all means to gain political or social advantage, including a claimed inferior victim status, whereas the meek subject themselves willingly to the good of the other. A weak person uses their strength to dominate, the meek person uses their strength to serve and protect. In other words, to be meek means having strength or something to give. Meekness is a synonym for gentleness, not weakness, and a posture that one of strong faith chooses to take:

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”

Matthew 5:5

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

Standard

My heart sank when I saw the image of Jonathan Price.  I’ll admit, while the lives of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Jacob Blake do matter, it is hard for me to identify with those who turn them into blameless victims and saints.

But this was different. Price, according to reports, was a “pillar in the community” and had been intervening in a domestic incident when Tazed, then fatally wounded, by a responding officer.

The officer has been charged with murder and it will be up to the justice system to decide his guilt or innocence. There is no reason for me to demonize him nor to defend his actions. There are always multiple sides to every story, the bodycam footage is likely to tell us more about the circumstances that led to the shooting, and the officer deserves his day in court.

However, the reason I’m writing this is that there some who are now mocking Price for his taking to social media, back in June, to encourage peace with law enforcement officers.  They would have you believe that this is some sort of lesson to him or those who would follow in his footsteps.

This is his post:

The glee that this man learned the hard way and that “they will still want to kill yo’ ass” is wrong on so many levels.  No, the death of Price does not disprove his advice nor help to prove the narrative that black men are being gunned down for being black.  It certainly does not justify the hatred of the police or make anything he said wrong.

1) There is no proof (yet) that the officer acted with malicious intentions.  Police officers are human.  Humans make mistakes.  It could be very possible that the officer who shot Price horribly misinterpreted the situation or that Price himself did something unintentionally that made him appear to be a threat.  If he was simply out to kill black men there would be many far easier ways he could satiate those aims without being as clearly identified as the killer.

2) With rare exceptions, it is still far better to cooperate with law enforcement and not see them as our enemies.  Most deadly encounters with police involve some kind of criminal behavior and resistance to lawful commands.  That is why I can’t see many of those killed by police (or who died in police custody) as being hapless victims as they are often presented.  If people did not fight with officers or run there would be very few deaths.

Price, despite his own tragic end, was right.  Yes, he was a black man killed by a police officer.  But the officer was promptly charged and, more importantly, this case is the rare exception.  The fact remains, no matter your skin color, a person who does not engage in criminal behavior or resist the lawful commands of a police officer is at a much lower risk than a person who does those things.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Those trying to make a positive difference in the world are taking a risky posture.  The sardonic quip, “no good deed goes unpunished” pays homage to this reality that being a Good Samaritan is often not safe.  Doing the right thing, getting involved, can cost a person their life.  A Google search for “Good Samaritan killed” shows many times where those intervening were harmed and that’s why many keep their heads low rather than get involved.

Chris and Taya Kyle

Chris Kyle, the ‘American Sniper’ was one of those go-getter types.  He took an active role in the lives of others and with this trying to help made himself more vulnerable.  He took a man under his wing who had some serious mental health issues and ultimately paid with his life.

The reason the sick man murdered them?

I was just riding in the back seat of the truck, and nobody would talk to me. They were just taking me to the range, so I shot them.

That, above, is precisely why many run the opposite direction from a crazy person.  It is a self-preservation instinct.  We know when something is off and we run.  This man couldn’t even appreciate the fact that the only reason that he was included at all is that the men he murdered cared about him.  They took the risk, they were doing something good that very few are willing to do and paid the ultimate price for their courage.

Price too, by getting involved in a domestic dispute, put himself in a position that was very risky to himself and certainly could’ve just been a bystander.  He would very likely still be alive today had he not gotten involved.  And yet his bravery took him into a confusing circumstance, led to a police officer mistaking him for the offending party and ended up with him being shot.

Price, like Kyle, had their lives together.  They very well could’ve avoided dangerous people and risky situations.  They could’ve taken the safe position that many people do.  But quite obviously they were willing to stand apart from others.  Price by humanizing law enforcement and refusing to go along with the easy tribal narrative.  Kyle in his willingness to lay aside his privileged life, as a successful warrior and publicly known personality, to spend time with a troubled man that most would avoid.

These stories could be used as a cautionary tale against this sort of faithfulness.  The tribal cynics and true cowards now ridicule Price.  They will have you believe that being like him will lead to you being shot.  And these same people would probably have stood by, as bystanders, laughed, and made a video for YouTube rather than attempt to intervene on behalf of another.  Kyle and Price should be commended for not being content to steer clear of danger as many do.  They were being peacemakers.

For They Will Be Called Sons of God

The Beatitudes are a regular part of the liturgy and a wonderful reminder to think beyond our present circumstances.  It is basically a list of what true righteousness looks like and the rewards of righteousness:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for your reward is great in heaven.

Matthew 5:3-12

All of those things listed come at a short-term cost.  Humility as opposed to arrogance; sobriety as opposed to mindless merriment; taking a submissive rather than aggressive posture; leaving our comfort zone rather than being complacent, all of these things require one to sacrifice something in the present tense.  But the promise, in relation to all, is a later and greater reward.

This is completely at odds with the “get mine” attitude and pursuit of instant gratification of this age.

The idea of a “peacemaker” is not to be in denial of the personal risks of involvement.  Entering into the conflict-zone is always a risky affair.  Those on either side of a divide could easily mistake you for an enemy combatant.  In the fog of war, friendly fire or getting caught in the crossfire are very real possibilities and those entering the fray usually are not unaware of this.

It is courage, not ignorance, that drives a peacemaker into danger.  A Christian is supposed to “count the cost” (Luke 14:28) of following after Jesus, the ultimate peacemaker, and consider the price of His obedience.  Jesus, the son of God, came into the fray, knowing full well of the pain and suffering He would endure, as a means to make a path of peace between us and God.

It is by the God-man Jesus, the word of God made flesh, that we can become the sons of God through adoption.  To be a peacemaker at personal cost is to live beyond ourselves, to live by faith rather than fear, and put on the divine. For those of faith, doing what is right will be rewarded in the end and even if it costs us everything in this life.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.

Stay In Your Lane

Standard

Maybe you saw the latest “Florida man” story?

Recently a Florida driver, speeding down the highway, shot through his own windshield at another vehicle and, evidently, felt so righteous about this that he actually posted the video.

His own explanation:

“I’m not a fan of guns; I’m a fan of not getting shot. I know this video doesn’t capture my smartest moments but I hope any idiot criminal with a gun watching thinks twice before loading, brandishing and aiming their firearm at someone over a traffic infraction.”

I really can’t tell you what is going on in a mind like that. Sharp as a tack, right?

But, what I can tell you is that shooting through your own windshield, while traveling nearly triple digits, does make merely brandishing and aiming a firearm at another motorist seem like responsible adult behavior by comparison.

Why he thought that this other man’s infractions justified his own, more egregiously offensive and dangerous behavior, is beyond me.

And yet this kind of attitude, that of people being blind to their own faults while completely aware and judgmental of when others fail, is not usual. In fact, I would venture to say that most people (yes, including you my dear audience and also yours truly) do this all of the time.

“We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions”

Stephen R. Covey

Recently someone very close to me, who runs a retail store, had a bigger competitor start to stock her most popular item. Not only that but, to add insult to injury, this other shop owner had the gall to price the product lower. Clearly, they were aiming to steal sales and this was very upsetting.

I mean, where is the honor?

And I was definitely sympathetic. In fact, so sympathetic that an awful thought crossed my mind. We could eliminate the competition through some means which I will not mention. I mean, it was not that I would seriously do such a thing. But the startling part is how quickly my mind goes to those dark places and can justify the horrendous retaliation.

Anyhow, when I verbalized this thought, half expecting her to be absolutely appalled, she confessed to having been contemplating the same exact thing!

That we were both drawing from an event that had traumatized us both as a solution to something as mundane as another store deciding to sell a hot seller and be competitive really gave me something to ponder. The only difference between me and a murderer is that I do not act on the impulse when it comes.

It is strange, indeed, that when someone does harm someone that I love, my own outrage is always justified in my own mind. However, when I contemplate doing something many times worse in response, somehow the pain inflicted on the offending party is not outrageous and completely justified?

It is prideful. It is sinful. But people can always come up with reasons why their own actions are appropriate, we are very skilled at justifying our own transgressions.

“We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are”

Anaïs Nin

It is easy to blame circumstances when we do something wrong. I mean, we were having a bad day, we were dealing with all of these external factors, how can we be blamed? However, when another person does something similar to us we will see it in terms of being a character flaw and, basically, something irredeemable.

For example, that guy who just cut you off in traffic, he’s an “idiot” who should “learn how to drive!” But when we do it is “oopsie” and “that doesn’t reflect me most of the time.”

Likewise, in the case of the bigger competitor stocking an item that sold well in our own store. To them, they need to keep the lights on and selling popular products at a lower price is just good business. Everyone does this, right?

But from the other side, looking in, it can seem greedy, cut-throat, disrespectful, unethical, and wrong. These are obviously unprincipled people, the worst kind, and should be ashamed. We can very soon have a caricature of them in our minds. Make them into ugly villains, out to ruin the little guy and keep everything for themselves. Nasty people with a total disregard for anyone else.

This the tendency to attribute differently to other people than we would for ourselves is referred to as fundamental attribution error. In that the other side is always awful, we catalog and recall everything they’ve done wrong as proof of some sort of genetic flaw. But then we quickly forget those out-of-character moments we’ve had and are even shocked when others do not forgive us for our own faults.

In short, when offended we attribute it to character flaw, something irredeemable. But, by contrast, when we hurt others it was a simple mistake or because circumstances demanded that we do what we did. We should actually reverse that, question our motives while assuming the best of the offending person’s intentions.

All Are Now Victims of the Protestantized World

Cities burn, people deliberately killed by other people, billions of dollars in damages already done, and we are led to believe that this is all because a man died while in police custody in Minnesota. This is called social justice.

Ironically, the same people who decry racial profiling against people who are somehow like them do not hesitate to group others, they freely use terms like “white privilege” and with this grouping deny the individuality of those whom they deem to be different from them. They are perpetually the victim you are always the oppressor. Therefore they are exempt from the rules and you deserve to be punished.

It is “mostly peaceful” when they (the far-left) protest, according to the reporters and despite fires burning in the background. It is okay for the protestants and their sympathizers to deny responsibility for the carnage. But, if one of those on the “other side” so much as defends themselves for this aggression, they are instantly labeled as a “white supremacist” or “terrorist” and should be shown no mercy whatsoever. Furthermore, the actions of one is declared to reflect everyone remotely associated with those who question the social justice assault.

Of course, for those of us watching the violent display and denials, this is appalling, hypocritical and wrong. It is dangerous when some are allowed to label all who oppose them in dehumanizing ways and aren’t denounced. It is completely scary when a person is described as a “domestic terrorist” for defending himself from being assaulted by a group of rioting men who coincidentally (or not) all had been previously convicted of violent felonies.

How can some be so detached from reality that everyone they oppose and assault are somehow “literal Nazis” deserving of death?

It all stems from the Marxist oppressor versus oppressed or victim narrative. The self-designated victim is always justified in their prejudice, hatred and violence. In fact, charging them with a crime for criminal behavior is going to be counted as persecution in their own warped minds. They can’t be faulted for what ‘oppressive’ circumstances have done to them. They are never at fault. But stand up to their bullying and it going to be treated as hate and thrown up as proof of their victim narrative.

But it goes beyond the current far-left. The rights or demands for dignity of those protesting are actually appropriated Christian cultural values. Like Judas throwing the words of Jesus, “sell all and give to the poor,” in his face as he wrongfully rebuked a woman’s display of worship, those crying “social justice” are also presenting a twisted Gospel founded on their particular grievance rather than God’s grace.

They, like the Protestant reformers before them, are right that the system is broken. Unfortunately, rather than turn to grace, and loving their enemies as Jesus loved His, they turn to law and harsh judgment of those, especially those in authority, who do not meet their own personal standards. Unfortunately, the church and society created by those tearing down ‘the system’ is no better than the one it replaces and is often many times worse.

“The boss isn’t always right, but he’s always the boss”

Rudolf Abel

There is this great movie about a captured Soviet spy, “Bridge of Spies,” that focuses on his relationship with the lawyer who represents him. This unassuming man, with an eternal calm, Rudolf Abel, is an interesting contrast to his anxious American attorney, James Donovan. Abel finds himself in a predicament, stuck between two superpowers, one that could execute him as a spy and the other likely to torture and kill him as a potential turncoat if returned to them. Yet, although in this impossible circumstance, the elderly Russian agent remains sober and seemingly unfazed. He speaks few words, but when he does they are profound and memorable, as in the following dialogue.

Rudolf Abel: “How did we do?”

James Donovan: “In there? Uh, not too good. Apparently, you’re not an American citizen.”

Rudolf Abel: “That’s true.”

James Donovan: “And according to your boss, you’re not a Soviet citizen either.”


Rudolf Abel: “Well, the boss isn’t always right but he’s always the boss.”

James Donovan: “Do you never worry?”

Rudolf Abel: “Would it help?”

Abel was calm because he knew his place. Unlike those of us who constantly fret and fuss about things really not in our control, he stayed composed, collected and focused on what was relevant in that moment for a man in his position. It would not help him to worry about things he had no power to change nor was there reason for him to place his own personal perspective above that of his boss. He was submitted to his authority, not in ignorance or indifference, but because he knew his place and thus stayed in his lane.

“Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority…”

Saint Paul

One of those things degraded or completely discarded, as a part of Protestantism, is the concept and of ordained authority and the respect thereof as is commanded in Scripture.

Today nearly everyone, in the West, regards themselves to be their own Pope, to be individually able to discern truth for themselves by study of Scripture and disregard the requirements therein that they deem are no longer suitable.

Martin Luther may have reconsidered had he known his “reformation” would lead. Sure, the Christian tradition had been corrupted by Rome. In fact, abuse of Papal power is what had led to the Great Schism between the Orthodox ‘East’ and Roman ‘West’ in 1054. However, the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Protest has displaced submission at all levels. Insubordination is encouraged.

There are many today who have this erroneous totally unChristian idea that a leader needs to be absolutely correct and perfect before they can be obedient. It is an idea, born of Democratic ideals, that the hierarchy must be completely dissolved or, at the very least, must be subservient to them.

And, while there is an element of truth, that a Christian leader should be a servant and the first among equals rather than an authoritarian jerk, this does not give us a right to play boss over the boss.

Only submitting leaders who deserve it means it is impossible to submit to anyone. And if someone only ever submits to those whom they fully agree with then they are not submitting to anything other than themselves and have denied the one who urged obedience to even the hypocritical Jewish religious authorities:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

(Matthew 23:1-3 NIV)

This submission to even corrupt authority is a theme of Scripture. David, even as the chosen successor to king Saul, refused to go against God’s ordained and was submissive even at great risk to his own life.

David spares King Saul

Jesus too was submissive and did not resist the authorities who he knew would lead him to his death. And the Apostles urged, without qualifications, that church submit to the ordained leaders:

Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you. Pray for us. We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way.

Hebrews 13:17-18 NIV

Desire to, not always do?

Please note, this is not an apologetic for abuse of authority and it does not mean always maintaining our silence when offended either.

But it does mean that when we so speak we do it appropriately, with purity, and without malice:

Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.

(1 Timothy 5:1-2 NIV)

We should address sin:

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

(Matthew 18:15-17 NIV)

There is absolutely no excuse for gossip and slander, smear campaigns and character assassinations, disrespect and disregard. Our being offended does not give us a justification for our own sins. The passages above don’t say that if things don’t go your own way bash the leadership, then you pick up your marbles and go home. There certain is no permission to become separatists and follow in the footsteps of Diotrephes who rejected the church of the Apostles. It is implied (and explicit in Scripture elsewhere) that we stay in our lane, we submit to the correct process and those who are ordained to lead that process.

Unfortunately, the church, like the Protestant world, is infected with this attitude of my way or the highway, that if I don’t like how things are run then I’ll burn it all down and recreate society in my own image. It is absolutely arrogant. If your righteous indignation leads you to reject ordained authority, then I question that you are as righteous as you think that you and urge repentance.

“No Justice, No Peace!”

My Protestant friends are still stuck on this notion of a perfect and pure church. They, like me, wanted leaders to ease their own burden of faith and, basically, a magic unicorn that would always only give them feelings of sunshine and rainbows. Good or bad, right or wrong, is always on their own terms and nobody dare tell them anything otherwise. In spirit they are truly no different from the Marxist protestors. They are perpetually the victims and justified to do as they please while those who offended them are monsters. These people should stop being lukewarm, go whole hog Protestant and become full-fledged social justice warriors. At least our leftist friends are honest about their destructive ends.

I became Orthodox because I could no longer trust my own judgement and was finally ready to submit to an authority greater than my own. No, I was not naïve nor indifferent to the existing problems and troubling events in the history of the church. But I had been humbled and realized that someone with all of my faults, who desperately needs the mercy of God, was in no position to judge the entire church. I was led to the church by a spiritual father that I could trust and respect. I’ve also quickly learned that the Orthodox ordained also are like those of the Mennonite denominational tradition: Fallible men, who unworthily put on the vestments, and are as much in need of my mercy as my respect.

Here’s a good point in this essay to make a confession. I have not lied. I have not revealed the names of those who offended me. And yet I did create a caricature of them in this blog that was not fair to them. They hurt me, but they were making a reasonable effort, as much as they were capable of doing and, in many ways, were my better.

In retrospect, while my unapologetic (and inappropriate for the context) pursuit of faith was finally rewarded and right, my own attitude towards those who had hurt me was judgmental and wrong. I was like Saul of Tarsus, a bull in the China shop, leaving a wake of destruction while in pursuit of completeness and desperately in need of God to point my efforts in the right direction. So, lest anyone feel judged by me now, I’ve been there done that, raged against the injustice, rebuked the faithless of others while having not much to give, and have now, finally, found my peace.

When I stopped demanding that God came to me on my own terms, when broken to the point where I could leave all of my prideful identities behind, that is when the fullness of faith was revealed to me. God had answered my prayer, He had made the impossible possible, but not on my own terms and not without having suffered such a humiliating defeat which was so utterly complete that there would be no recovering my old ways.

“No Jesus, No Peace”

The Protestant says, “no justice, no peace.” They, like me prior to my departure from them to Orthodoxy, will hold others hostage and harass endlessly until they get what they want. They attain, not through love, but by their bloody insurrections and overpowering the established order by brute force of the mob. Given the choice of Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas, they will choose the murderer. (Watch this if you do not understand Barabbas vs Jesus) They want salvation without sacrifice, the kingdom without Christ, and are often orders of magnitude worse than the ‘oppressors’ whom they attempt to throw off. They are school shooters, the control freaks, people blind to their own faults and willing to kill you for yours. They will never know peace unless they repent.

What the protesters get wrong is they put justice, on their own terms, ahead of Jesus. They, like Judas, are truly self-serving under a righteous façade and after a worldly kingdom where they have the political power. The the truth is not “not justice, no peace,” but rather this: “No Jesus in our hearts, no peace inside.”

Those who externalize blame for their own sin, demonize those who go against them and their own ideas, and reject all authority besides their own are lost. They first reject the authority of the church and those ordained by the church, then they begin to shed tradition, eventually even the tradition of Scripture cannot escape their reformation and is discarded. This paring down continues until, ultimately, they become miserable narcissists who reject God and would kill Jesus if they had to chance.

The death spiral can take a few generations. But it often starts when something doesn’t go someone’s way and they allow the seeds of discontentment to grow in them. I’ve known more than a few young men who completely lost faith and left Christianity behind because of the rejection of a romantic interest. That could easily have been me had it not been for God’s grace.

It is so incredibly sad, those who are in the church, claim that they could endure persecution for Christ, and yet divide over petty issues, imperfections and insults. They only love when things go their way and never actually submit to anything besides their own agenda. Worse, rather than even depart in peace, they encourage the church to turn on itself and seek to destroy the peace of others with their accusations. Sadly, even after the destruction is over, after they burned everything to the ground, they will still be as miserable as they were before. The word Jesus may come from their lips, but they rejected His way in their hearts and never really knew Him.

“Know Jesus, know Peace”

Progress towards Christ starts when we stop externalizing blame and repent. Peace comes when we stop indulging our flesh and start walking in the Spirit. St Paul, who certainly wasn’t afraid to be confrontational and probably had his enemies in the early church, in his letter to the Galatians, spells out the difference between a person living by flesh in contrast to those walking in the Spirit. He creates a clear delineation between those who “serve one another humbly in love” and those who “bite and devour one another” and warns of the destruction to come to those who do not change:

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

(Galatians 5:19-23 NIV)

St Paul is talking to the church, this means that these things of the flesh that are listed were very likely present in the church then, now and are in need of rebuke. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. However, if we continue to “live like this” we will eventually forfeit our salvation. The fruit of the Spirit, which come through repentance and faith, should keep us from cataloging lists of offenses, it should lead us to forgive others of their trespasses against us and to show mercy as we have been shown mercy by God. The contrast really could not be any more clear: Peace or discord, forbearance or factions, self-control or orgies of envy, rage and hatred. Kingdom of God or eventual condemnation and separation from God.

Sure, some of us, those of us who are well-taught religious folks, we can put a smile on our face and go through the right motions. As is often repeated by Orthodox Christian: “His talk is smooth as butter, yet war is in his heart; his words are more soothing than oil, yet they are drawn swords.” (Psalm 55:21 NIV) It is easy, for those of us raised in a church, to mask our selfish motives and sinful attitudes in the right language. Judas, like many of us, had kept his discontentment under a self-righteous veil before eventually being open in his betray of Jesus. He sold Jesus out because he was looking for worldly things and became disillusioned.

But, knowing Jesus means giving up our own rights, denying our own flesh, and following after Him in self-sacrificial love. It means forgiving others before they even acknowledge their own sins. There are no exceptions.

The Gospel text today:

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 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. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

(Luke 6:27-36 NIV)

That is the path to peace.

We can know Jesus by living in obedience to Jesus and, through that, giving room for the Spirit of God to live in our own heart.

The alternative, of waiting until everyone is worthy before we can love or submit, is what leads to chaos and confusion. It is what leads to violent confrontations on Florida highways, murderous thoughts against those who offended us, a destructive spirit of “burn it down” (unless I get my way) and divides the church rather than build it up. We need to stop the poison of accusations leaving our lips and start to give the medicine of healing instead or we will write ourselves right out of the kingdom.

“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”

That is not optional for a Christian.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Stay in your lane.