Scandal! What Scandal?

Frank

When I started this blog, my intention was to offer an alternative perspective to the usual religion/politics media-driven dichotomy that I think we get too wrapped up in.  I’m a political junkie in my heart- following political news closer than any other category -but as my faith has evolved over time I’ve come to look at my personal politics differently.

A great example of this is my support to the American Center for Law and Justice.  When I first started blogging I included a link to the ACLJ in my sidebar.  I’d listen to their program on my commute from work.  And I was so intrigued by religious liberty debates that I actually picked up and read David Limbaugh’s book, Persecution.

But like I said, as my faith matured my politics evolved.  I have to confess that I didn’t vote for Barak Obama but I didn’t think he was the antichrist either.  He was the President and it was what it was.  But I noticed the tone on the ACLJ radio program began to turn hostile.  They covered religious liberty issues less, and political policy more.  The straw that broke my back was during the early debates over the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.  The ACLJ was vehemently opposed to it, but on what Christian grounds I could not fathom.  They made the case opposed to abortion funding, but federal law already prohibits it.  They made the case that it was socialist, but we read in Acts that “all the believers were together and had everything in common.  They sold their property and possessions and gave to everyone as they had need.” (Acts 2:44-45)  And they used fear-mongering to manipulate people into giving.  The scales fell from my eyes; the ACLJ wasn’t a Christian organization, it was unapologetically right-wing.

I’d check in on the radio every now and then, especially to get updates when Paster Saeed Abedini was imprisoned in Iran.  But it was clear religious liberty issues took a back-seat to political activism.

Shortly after President Trump’s travel ban was blocked by the courts, Jordan Sekulow, son of ACLJ founder Jay, was on KNX news radio in Los Angeles to discuss the legal arguments for the ban.  He bluntly stated that we need better vetting (“extreme vetting” in the President’s words) using refugees as an example of those who weren’t vetted.  The radio host pointed out the painstakingly long process, including vetting through the United Nations, Interpol, was well as the FBI and Homeland Security, before refugees are settled in the United States.  Jordan didn’t flinch and stood by his argument.  When called out explicitly that he lied, he still didn’t yield.  The host concluded the interview by pointing out that the ACLJ is a Christian organization.  Thank you for the black eye, Jordan.

Then a week ago, it was announced Jay Sekulow was hired on to the President’s legal team.  My eyebrow raised.  It didn’t surprise me that he went around the news just regurgitating the administration’s talking points.  And it didn’t surprise me that many Christians bought his story hook, line, and sinker.

But my blood boiled when I read the news that Jay had funneled millions of charitable donations towards he and his family’s salaries and perks.  And of course, investigations follow, but I’m sure ‘faithful Christians’ will declare this a witch hunt.

I’m not trying to look down on those who still support the ACLJ or rub it in.  I share all this because I believe people can change, politics can change.  Mine did.  But I wonder what level of scandal will cause others to look at their religion and politics more critically?  The scandals of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart didn’t lead to the end of the Religious Right in the 80’s.  Pat Robertson is still on the air despite the ridiculous things he says.  Jerry Falwell Jr has taken up his father’s mantle and then some.  James Dobson resigned from Focus on the Family but is still influential.  So I wonder if the latest controversy surrounding Jay Sekulow will make any difference, or if Christians will see this as just another example of the devil opposing God’s chosen president.

To Sell Your Soul

To Sell Your Soul

Frank

What does it look like to sell your soul?  Maybe you can picture it from movies or cartoons.  Maybe you imagine the musical Damn Yankees, or recall the story of bluesman Robert Johnson at the Crossroads, or when the devil annulled Spider-Man’s marriage to MJ.  But what would it look like today, in real life?  What would it take for a stranger, or a friend, or a cause to convince you to give up everything you believe?

Last month, on the eve of the National Day of Prayer, President Donald Trump hosted his evangelical advisors for a dinner to celebrate his election victory and to discuss the religious freedom Executive Order he would issue the following day.  A blogger I follow posted a picture from that dinner and speculated that was what selling your soul looked like.  I replied that I found it ironic their dinner was lobster (eating shellfish being an “abomination” according to Leviticus 11, just a few pages before the popularly quoted Leviticus 18).  But in the picture I didn’t see money changing hands, or souls being wisped away.

During my Sunday school class this week, I reminded everyone that the “antichrist” according to John wasn’t a specific person, rather anyone who denied that Jesus was the Christ.  More specifically it was directed towards the Gnostics, who believed that since the flesh was inherently sinful Jesus could not be both human and divine.  Yet we like to throw that word around to describe anyone we think opposes our particular worldview (Christian, or not).  George W Bush, Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump… you get the idea.

We do this because we are convinced the antichrist is a specific character in the end-times.  He or she is the ruler of the “one world government” that comes before the rapture, Jesus’ return, or whatever other eschatological interpretation you may have.  But Revelation never mentions the antichrist.  Rather there are two beasts in Revelation 13- one, a political leader and the second, a religious leader -who work together in service of the dragon.

Nearly everyone agrees the dragon is Satan.  But there is more debate about identifying the beasts.  The first is often described by terms like “new world order” and can be interpreted as the United Nations, NATO, the global economy, the G8, et cetera.  The second is popularly the Catholic Church or the Pope.  It is sometimes interpreted to be Constantine giving rise to Christendom.

Regardless, the narrative of Revelation describes the beasts as religious authority ceding to political favor.  In other words, selling your soul for the sake of politics.

Later on Sunday, President Trump’s new lawyer, Jay Sekulow, made the rounds on cable news to defend that the president was not under any investigation.  Jay Sekulow, in case you didn’t know, used to be lead counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a counter-organization to the ACLU specializing in religious freedom cases.  But over the years the ACLJ has become more and more political.  And now Sekulow finds himself on the president’s retainer.

In one of the many articles describing his news-tour, someone commented that it was clear President Trump had God’s favor because Sekulow was representing him and therefore no powers of evil can defeat him.

That, right there, is what selling your soul looks like.

It’s not the dinner evangelical leaders have with presidents.  It’s not paychecks received to appear on the news and advance a political narrative.  It’s not even the political maneuvering that is done by religious leaders every time there is an election.

No, it is the common person, the sincere believer, who is deceived because someone they considered a spiritual authority takes a political stance signifying such politics as godly.

After the beasts are introduced in Revelation 13, their followers are then described.  These deceived can be recognized by a physical sign- the mark of the beast.  It’s not the politician or the religious leader we have to worry about selling their soul, rather it is you and me being deceived, being marked.

And He Loved Them Too

Frank

“I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”  What a ridiculous statement from Jonah (Jonah 4:9) after not getting his way while God got his.  The temper tantrum of a toddler because God did what Jonah knew he was going to do.

As ridiculous as it sounds, this is my favorite part of Jonah’s story.  Maybe because I relate so well.  You see, I have a self-righteousness problem.  I think I know it all.  I think my interpretation of the Bible, my doctrine, my church is better than yours.  So I always have to check myself when I’m tempted to be critical.

Jonah thought his interpretation of God’s will was better than the the God who gave it, that his faith was better than the Ninevites.  So he ignored God’s instructions.  Actually, he did more than ignore it, he ran as far away from it as he could.

But God’s will couldn’t be ignored for long; a great fish had other ideas.

The stories seemed to come on top of each other- the trial of a church trying to beat the homosexuality out of a man and a congressman declaring holy war on Muslims.  My instinct was to ask, “do these people actually read their Bibles?”  Even today I saw an article at Christianity Today on how we can pray for Muslims during Ramadan.  Yes, the headline was click-bait, but the comments are appalling.  So when I heard the news about a man arrested on his way to shoot doctors, my first thought was “abortion”.

Turns out that wasn’t the case.  But what does it say when that’s what we expect?

You’ve probably heard the saying, Christians are known more for what they are against than what they are for.  While that usually invokes images of protesters in front of abortion clinics or at a funeral holding signs saying, “God hates fags”, we usually don’t think of such exercises of ‘free speech’ as violent.

Until an abortion clinic is bombed.

Or until the son of a famous evangelist and president of a prominent Christian college encourages Christians to carry guns so that they can “end” Muslims.

Or until a gay youth is driven to suicide by family, friends, and a church who reject her.

These types of Christians are so angry they wish others were dead.

And darn right I’m critical.

You see, what made Jonah so angry (besides the heat, because c’mon who isn’t short-tempered in scorching heat) was that God had the nerve to forgive.  It wasn’t up to Jonah to decide who was worthy.  Jonah admitted, “I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.” (4:2)  And that graciousness, that compassion, that love extended even to Jonah’s enemies.

I wonder if the folks at Word of Life Church, or Congressman Higgins, or Jerry Falwell Jr have ever read this story and asked,who the Ninevites are in their lives, because God loves them too.  The homosexual.  The Muslim.  The liberal.  The woman.  The sinner.  God loves them too.

So these headlines make me angry.  Angry because the hatred and the violence is what some people think Christianity is all about.  It makes me so angry at times I was I was dead and didn’t have to deal with it.

Because God loves them too.

The Christians who don’t look like Jesus.  The pastor who confuses nationalism with faith.  The angry crusader.  The homophobe.  The self-righteous.  The face in the mirror.

God loves them too.

Choose Lives

Frank

I shouldn’t be alive.  That sounds dramatic, I know, but statistically it’s true.  In high school I remember debating a girl on the topic of abortion.  Her succinct argument was that I didn’t have a right to speak up because I was a male.  But I think I have more of a right than most, simply for the fact that I am alive to say something.

You see, I was given up for adoption at birth.  My biological parents were unwed teenagers; I don’t know their names or really anything else about them.  I was thankfully adopted at two weeks old; my adoptive family is the only family I’ve ever known.  I know many who haven’t been as fortunate- being shuffled between foster families, never feeling settled or ever having a sense of ‘home’.

So I should be militantly pro-life, knowing that adoption is always an option.  I was part of a youth/campus ministry for a time that had “life” as a top priority.  We would pray daily for the unborn.  I even participated in a march or two.  I got in a fight with a friend in college who refused to eat the Domino’s Pizza I ordered because its owner donated to pro-life causes.

But I’m not.

Shortly after the debate mentioned above, a good friend became pregnant.  She was salutatorian of my graduating class.  She was allowed to walk, but she couldn’t speak (our school was small enough both the valedictorian and salutatorian gave speeches).  She was vice president of our student council, but had to step down.  She was rejected, shunned, and made fun of (I confess to participating in the latter).  And when graduation day arrived, I could see the pain in her face as she held back tears.  My politics had a face.

This wasn’t some Christian school in the bible belt.  This was just a small town, rural high school that remembered a time when a pregnant teenager would be sent away to stay with an “aunt” to save her family from embarrassment.

You might’ve seen a similar story in the past week, or maybe you read the young woman’s op-ed in the Washington Post.  To say I relate is only partly true- I haven’t felt that rejection, I haven’t carried a baby to term, I wasn’t afraid of what my future had in store and how every plan and dream I had now had to change.  But I’ve witnessed it.

I’ve witnessed it as an adult too.  I witnessed it as a young girl in the teen ministry I was helping lead became pregnant and was effectively, though not officially, disfellowshipped.  But my wife and I kept our door open- severing her dinner, babysitting while she looked for a job.  Around the same time, a good friend also got pregnant (must’ve been something in the water, as they say).  She was single.  She too was rejected by the church.  So the door to our home opened wider.  Then a friend of my wife returned from deployment in the Middle East and needed help, as a single mom, getting on her feet.  Another women had the exact opposite need, her husband was deployed and needed help with her kids as a functionally, though not technically, single mother.  All of this happened within a couple of years.  I look back at times like these and can see that God was at work, even if I didn’t feel like it at the time; we had our own kids to deal with, after all!

A friend likes to quote the DJ/artist Moby, how Christians care more about the woman entering the abortion clinic than the woman leaving it.

This is how I feel about the pro-life/pro-choice debate.  My politics have done a complete 180 in the years since my Young Republican and College Republican days.

I wouldn’t say I’m pro-choice however.  I just want to say that I understand.

Despite my politics leaning right, I appreciated the (old) Democratic platform with respect to abortion: it should be available, but rare.  Sadly they removed the “rare” qualifier during the last election cycle.

But a child isn’t a right/left, life/choice dichotomy.  A mother is not a political football, being thrown downfield in either direction depending on who is on offense for the next four years.  There must be a “third way”.

Yesterday, I listened to the latest Phil Vischer podcast with their guest Angie Weszely.  Angie was representing the ministry Pro Grace.  And she expressed everything I feel.

Check out the podcast.  And check out the ministry.  To say we are “pro-life” but only care about one of the two lives (really three, the men responsible are seldom considered in the debate) is only being half-honest.  We should be “pro-lives”, plural.  And that is Pro Grace.

The Gospel According to Bono

Frank

Last week I watched U2 perform their album, The Joshua Tree, live at the Rose Bowl.  They are on tour celebrating the 30th anniversary of their breakout release.  While I like U2, I wouldn’t necessarily consider myself a huge fan to the point of saying, “OMG, I have to see this concert!”  (Although I do admit regretting not taking the opportunity to see them live on their PopMart Tour back in 1997, after hearing how elaborate and technically advanced their show was.)  But I do remember one summer listening to that album on a seemingly endless loop while painting a house with the campus ministry I was involved with at the time.  We would take breaks from the heat and discuss the spiritual themes in the songs we were listening to.  Those discussions planted seeds that grew when I read about how and when the band was baptized early in their career and how seriously, if unorthodox, Bono took his faith.

On the one hand I admired Bono’s boldness on the global stage- meeting with world leaders, advocating for the poor and hungry.  But on the other hand I found his politics and sanctimony tiring- there are times when it seems like Bono is everywhere with a solution for everything.

So a live concert celebrating the milestone of an album that played an important part of my own spiritual development seemed like a perfect excuse to see and hear the man himself.  (That, and the added bonus of taking my wife out for a rare time without the kids)

U2 wrote The Joshua Tree as a love-letter to America.  Their songs reflected the landscape they encountered while touring for their previous albums.  Bono describes their album as describing not just the physical aspects of the United States, but also the emotional and spiritual (a point he made during the concert and referenced in just about every article written about the album).  And the titular tree, standing alone in the desert, symbolized hope- reaching heavenward out of desolation.

The “gospel” that Bono preached that night was one of hope.  Prior to one of his songs, Bono proclaimed, “it’s Saturday night but let’s sing like it’s Sunday morning! Lift up your hands!”  He didn’t shy away from politics, and yes he was heavy-handed at times.  But that sense of hope permeated the concert, from his on-stage antics to the videos playing behind him (including at one point lyrics from Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech).  The album is described as celebrating not what America is, but what it could be.  And that is the good news of U2.

Regardless of political platitudes and playing up to the climate of the time, Bono gives hope for a country that his once-nemesis Ronald Reagan described as a “city on a hill”.  There is hope for a country that claims to be over 70% Christian, despite our politics and policies betraying such statistics.  There is a hope for a country with more resources than most of the world combined.  There is hope for a country to overcome systematic racism and what Pope John Paul the Second described as a “culture of death”.  There is hope for thousands of concert-goers who feel energized by current events to just do something to make this world a better place.

Maybe music isn’t the appropriate means to deliver such a gospel.  Perhaps Bono’s ego makes him a self-serving messenger (his sit-down with Eugene Peterson would suggest otherwise).  But that doesn’t invalidate the message.  We should be striving for better- better politics, better relationships, better stewardship.

Maybe we should listen as Bono admonishes us to “take it to church”

This Song is About Me!

Frank

I read this a week or so ago in my Facebook feed from the click-baity site Hello Christian: “Is the Song ‘What a Beautiful Name It Is’ Heretical?”  As expected, commenters were quick to defend the ear-worm song specifically and Hillsong’s ministry in general while criticizing the author for picking at nits (or staining gnats, if you prefer).

The author, Sam Storms, a pastor in Oklahoma who was just recently elected vice president of the Evangelical Theological Society, tried to make the point that the line, “you didn’t want heaven without us” paints God/Jesus as being needy, as if his worth relies on our “acceptance”.  Responses to the effect of, “it’s a song, get over it!’ miss his point entirely and ignore stories like Esther, to whom Mordecai pointed out that God’s deliverance of Israel didn’t depend on her, or Paul’s words on Mars Hill in Athens that God “is not served… as if he needed anything.”

As authors N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight, and others have (I believe) rightfully pointed out, the terms “gospel” and “salvation” have been diluted in Western Christianity to satisfy our personal tastes, making God no different than Santa Claus.  We “accept” Christ in “our hearts”.  We lament how politicians “keep God out of our schools” as if that’s even possible.  We church shop based on worship, children’t ministry, or we don’t even front and base it on how much time it takes out of our Sundays.  I’ve often heard the phrase, “if you were the only person on earth, Jesus still would’ve died for you.”  So in other words, the gospel is all about me.

And we hear it in the songs we sing.

‘What a Beautiful Name It Is’ isn’t the only one.  Another that always makes my skin crawl every time I hear it is ‘This is Amazing Grace’ by Phil Wickham.  I pointed this out to my pastor the other day and now he says he can’t not hear it.  The chorus goes like this:

This is Amazing Grace
This is unfailing love
That you would take my place,
That you would bear my cross

You laid down your life
So I might be set free
Oh, Jesus, I sing for
All that you’ve done for me

Do you see it?  No, I’m not talking about “all that you’ve done for me”.  Rather that Jesus took my place to “bear my cross”.  This runs counter to Jesus’ very words that following him is conditional upon us taking up our own cross.  It’s not like he said it just once either.  You can find the message to “take up your cross and follow me” in Matthew 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, and 14:27.  Yes, I know, synoptics.  But my point is, this isn’t some obscure teaching that you only find in the fine print.

Jesus puts this condition as a “must” in Matthew 16, Mark 8, and Luke 9.  You’re not “worthy” of following Jesus if you don’t in Matthew 10.  And perhaps most hard-hitting, you “cannot” even be his disciple unless you do so in Luke 14.

So it’s a pretty big deal.

Yet we sing the opposite because it makes us feel better.

I don’t think Phil Wickham or Brooke Ligertwood include such lyrics intentionally.  (Another example that I think makes it obvious this isn’t intentional is TobyMac’s ‘Until the Day I Day’ where he repeats that he’ll follow God until things stop going well (“til the spotlight fades”))  The phrases fit the rhythm of the song and rhyme just right.

But I think this individualized gospel is so ingrained that we don’t even realize it when lyrics like this slip into the songs we regularly listen to or when it permeates the language we use.  And that individualism drives our religious decisions, our convictions, and our evangelism.  So we perpetuate it and it gets worse.

Songs are meant to impact us emotionally, so obviously we like songs that make us feel good.  But our theology shouldn’t be the same way.

The Science Debate

Frank

A few weeks ago I attended a debate between a local pastor and an engineer from the local “Freethinkers” organization.  The topic of the debate was  “Does Science Confirm the Bible?” but this was more strictly defined at the event as- can the biblical account of creation be supported by biological science? (in other words: evolution versus creation) I was eager to attend as both an engineer and a Christian and as a wannabe scholar who dabbles in apologetics.

I have read some books and articles trying to reconcile science and the Bible but I had never actually seen it debated in person with specific points and counterpoints, watching the debaters think on the fly versus reciting prepared statements.  And I had just finished reading Finding God in the Waves by Mike McHargue (aka Science Mike), so such questions were fresh in my mind.  I went in with the mindset of asking myself how I would answer the questions, or what my rebuttals would be.  I also wanted to have an open mind because in my limited experience atheists, agnostics, and skeptics have legitimate points of contention and their questions should be taken seriously.

The Q&A ran long so I missed the ending.  I don’t know if they actually declared a ‘winner’ or not, but in my opinion the winner was (drumroll)…. the skeptic, and it wasn’t close.

My biggest issue, and this is true with many books on this subject as well, was that the paster refused to debate the Bible on science’s terms.  What I mean by that is that a scientific claim is made and the Christian responds with a Bible quote.  Sure, that may win over the Christians who already have their minds made up, but there’s no reason for a skeptic to buy such an argument.  And the pastor dug himself into a deeper hole by claiming as his ‘science’ rebuttals cherry-picked quotes from scientists.

Yes, irreducible complexity is a compelling argument.  But that’s a metaphysical debate, not a scientific one, despite what proponents of Intelligent Design might claim.  And yes, there are many believers (Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project for one) who are also scientists or even experts in these fields.  But personal quotes do not prove anything other than the what the person quoted thought about something.  Scientific proofs require evidence, measurement, and observation.  And the Christian side of the debate seldom goes down that road.

But why not?  I think on one hand we’re afraid of where that road may lead (see criticisms of scholars like Pete Enns for example).  But I think more importantly, we refuse to admit that the Bible is not a science book.  Our personal doctrines and theologies have elevated the Bible to “Holy” status and therefore is objectively true from a scientific, historical, archeological, biological, anthropological… you name it, perspective.  There is no lens through which to view the Bible as ‘not true’.  The problem  then is how we define truth.  Is it true that the earth was created in six days, or rather does that account reveal truth about who God is? Is it true that there was a literal Adam and Eve that lived in the Garden of Eden, or does their fall reveal truth about the sin-condition of the world?

In grad school I took a class called “The Philosophy of Physics” as one of the last electives I needed to knock out before I could get my degree.  The class was essentially a quantum physics class but without the math.  We discussed the philosophical implications of string theory, the multiverse, and quantum pairing.  And believe it or not the class actually strengthened, not hurt, my faith.  There was more “truth” debated in that course than I think I’d get in any ‘creation science’ class.  We need to be willing to ask ourselves hard questions.

I also think Christians are afraid of admitting they don’t have all the answers.  Maybe you’ve heard the Bible described as “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth” as if that was its only value.  When we look at the Bible in such a way, we insist it must have all the answers to every question.  When science discovers something new, we simply don’t know how to fit that new discovery into our worldview.

Because of the above reasons, Christians struggle to understand that faith and science do not have to agree.  There have been volumes written on this subject- here is just a recent example- so I won’t get into this more deeply, but it is perhaps the most important point.  Today is not only Earth Day, but also the day organizers have set aside to ‘March for Science’.  The driving concern of that march is that science has been politicized (it long has been) and that the current political powers have been dubbed ‘anti-science’ largely because of holding to biblical ‘truth’ over scientific truth.  Political decisions are being made under the assumption that the Bible is a science book therefore global warming can’t be real, evolution is a hoax, and so on.

But the Bible stands on its own terms.  It doesn’t need science to be proven.  In fact, it’s not our job to prove God, he can stand on his own.  So let’s stop approaching all of this with antagonism- science, politics, objective truth.  The only “proof” we need is our love for one another, “by this everyone will know” we are disciples (John 13:35)

Two Songs, One Heart

Frank

Do you remember the movie Deep Impact?  Maybe not, but I bet you remember Armageddon.  What about Dante’s Peak and Volcano?  Those aren’t the only examples of very similar movies being released around the same time.  Prestige/The Illusionist, White House Down/Olympus has Fallen, The Jungle Book/Jungle Book, and so on.  It turns out this is actually relatively common.  I was surprised by the list I found on wikipedia for the “Two Film Theory”.

What is more strange though is when this happens with music, call it the “Two Song Theory”.  Contemporary Christian Music isn’t immune to this phenomenon either.  ‘Grace Wins’ by Matthew West and ‘Flawless’ by Mercy Me were both released around the same time, ‘Move’ by Toby Mac and ‘It’s Not Over Yet’ by For King and Country is another example with one finding favor on some stations and the other on others (seriously, I think I’ve only ever heard ‘Move” once on Air1 which is surprising for a Toby Mac song).

But what is jarring is hearing these songs back to back, especially when they are so similar.  A week ago, Air1 was doing their pledge drive and I have to admit I didn’t want to listen to them ask for money so I was switching between them and their sister station, K-LOVE.  I’ve heard these songs before, but I never listened that closely to the lyrics.  But when I heard them back to back, one on Air1 and the other on K-LOVE, the lyrics jumped out at me.  Now I can’t listen to one without thinking of the other.  What is remarkable is that these are essentially the same songs, just from different perspectives.  One, “I have this hope… you’re with me and you won’t let go”.  The other, “If you could only let go your doubts… I swear that I won’t let you go.”

Maybe it’s a double-punch to my heart, but I can’t listen to either of these songs now without being moved.  Consider it two for the price of one.

Proportional Response

Frank

I was about the same age as my kids when President Reagan ordered air strikes against Libya.  I remember his national address interrupting whatever I was watching on TV and I was transfixed by the images of F-16s and explosions.  All I knew of war at the time was GI Joe (and how the blue and red lasers never actually killed anyone), but this event defined a ‘real’ enemy I could now include in my imaginary play.  I remember that as the news continued I would build a fort out of the cushions of a sofa where my American GI Joe soldiers gathered to plan their attack on the La-Z-Boy across the room.  Oh, to be an innocent child again.

Early in the first season of The West Wing, there is an episode called ‘Proportional Response’ where President Bartlet has to decide on what is an appropriate response to, ironically enough, Syria shooting down an American plane with a friend on board.  While military advisors recommend a nighttime strike against a military target to minimize casualties, the president wants to deliver a stronger message.  His emotions, in fact, drive him to want to “bomb the hell” out of Syria. (I recall a recent presidential candidate who speculated whether bombing that part of the world would make its sand glow in the dark, implying a nuclear response)  It was difficult to rationalize a response that didn’t ultimately make any difference, but it was the right thing to do.

I had both experiences in my mind on Thursday when I got a message from work that we had taken military action against Syria.  My wife and I had already talked about how horrifying were the images of the chemical weapon attacks earlier in the week, wondering what could be done.

I’m not sure our proportional response will make any difference.  The politics in that region are complicated and allegiances are so intertwined that it is difficult to do anything without unintentionally angering an ally or provoking an adversary.  I can’t say what we did was right or wrong but it makes sense.

From a certain point of view.

A couple of years ago, I was taking a class on Christ and Culture.  As we were talking about other global movements of Christianity, we turned to the subject of war.  In my head and in my speech I declare allegiance to a heavenly kingdom over an above any earthly rule.  But in practice…?  Once a year when we take up a special collection for world missions, I can conceptualize that foreigners and strangers are brothers and sisters in Christ.  But in my heart…?  When I realized that our national enemies may be brothers or sisters in Christ, that from an eternal perspective I have more in common with the casualties of war than the physical neighbor whose politics align with my own, my worldview was rocked to its core.  My perspective of war, geopolitics, and patriotism are forever changed.

Which makes Syria a conundrum.  Yes, the chemical attacks are gruesome and inexcusable.  And I fundamentally oppose authoritarianism because it always creates an oppressed class.  But like I said, the politics of that region is complicated, and Russia’s involvement only muddies those waters.

Why does Russia care?  The obvious answer is oil, so there is an existing economic link.  Russia also has military bases there so there is a military link.  From our western perspective, we might say it’s just an example of one bad guy teaming up with another so there may be a common-cause link.  But they’re only bad guys from our point of view.  Like I said, it’s complicated.  What has been under-reported since the Syrian civil war began is role of the Syrian Orthodox Church in all of this.  You see, the Syrian church has close ties with the Russian Orthodox Church.  So there is actually a religious link too.

What does that have to do with Bashar Al Assad, chemical weapons, and the US?  Believe it or not, the Syrian church actually enjoyed some relative freedom and protection under President Assad, which obviously would not be the case under ISIS and would be unlikely under the rule of any of the Syrian rebel groups.  So if you were a Christian in Syria, you would be grateful for Russia’s involvement and would be praying that the US keeps their nose out of your business.  You would long for a return to the status quo.

So then, what do we do?  Even if we have different denominational stripes, we have to be sympathetic to the Christians suffering in the Middle East but at the same time we have to humbly recognize that we don’t have all the answers.  Our proportional response must be to pray with the fervor of explosive weapons.  Pray for peace.  Pray for those suffering, Christian or not.  Pray for unification against the radicalization that ISIS represents.  Pray agains the patriotic jingoism that we are tempted to fall into.  That is the only possible proportional response.

See Yourself on the Silver Screen

See Yourself on the Silver Screen

Frank

My daughter has been looking forward to seeing Beauty and the Beast since the first trailer aired.  Unfortunately, she has to wait just a little longer since she’s going with her Girl Scout troop as a celebration of their cookie sales.  Many friends saw it last weekend however, and I’m told they completely loved it.  There was no mention of any “gay agenda” being forced upon them, nor was there any disgust at any explicitly homosexual scenes.  I know my daughter couldn’t care less about such controversies, and I’m willing to bet that when she does see the movie she won’t even notice the subplot and scene in question.  Despite calls for a boycott, the movie opened last weekend to a March-record $170 million box office and an over $350 million worldwide take.

But this isn’t about the boycott.  There has been plenty written about that already, most recently at Unfundamentalist Christian.  No, this is about the silver screen itself and our desire to see ourselves reflected, or rather projected, as the heroine, the princess, or at times even the villain.

My daughter wants to see the movie because she wants to see Belle dance and sing (along with candelabras, teacups, and clocks).  She likes to watch Mulan to see the girl become the hero.  She loves Lilo and Stitch because of the rambunctious girl who always seems to get into trouble, yet always finds a way to work everything out in the end.

But not everyone can enjoy movies that same way.  As a middle-class white male, I don’t have to think twice about whether or not I’m represented on screen.  And if I can’t relate to a character, it is usually because of the choices he makes or the dialogue he fails to deliver convincingly.  I don’t think twice about whether that character looks just like me or represents my demographic.

Having LeFou’s latent homosexuality slightly more explicit than was depicted in the animated movie means a lot to homosexuals who long to see themselves depicted on the screen.  For this to be the first explicitly gay character in a Disney movie is taken by some to be groundbreaking.

But this post isn’t about homosexuality either.  Because they are not the only minority group struggling to be represented in Hollywood.

I’m a comic book nerd, so I haven’t been able to avoid hearing about the “whitewashing” of characters from The Ancient One in Dr Strange, to The Major in The Ghost in the Shell; or the missed opportunity to cast a minority in The Iron Fist; or split opinions over Idris Elba being cast as Roland, the Gunslinger, in The Dark Tower; or the celebration over the casting choices for The Black Panther.

These things aren’t new.  It was a big deal to have a single mother portrayed in a leading role on Murphy Brown just as it was groundbreaking (much more so than any character in Beauty and the Beast) for there to be a gay lead on Will & Grace.  What is new to me is that now I notice.

I have a lot more to write about “white privilege” that will have to wait for another time.  But in this case, I wanted to call our attention to the fact that white straight Americans take for granted our position in society, as evidenced by the roles we see in movies and on television.  Black-ish has become my favorite TV show because it challenges my perceptions and assumptions.  I wouldn’t call myself “woke”, but I’m getting there.

As Christians, we need to have more empathy.  Period.  I’m not saying minimizing sin (if that’s your conviction) for the sake of tolerance, because that just goes in line with being politically correct.  No, empathy is a heart-condition.  It is the ability to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes and to see the world the way they do.

In the case of Beauty and the Beast, there are closeted gays who might for the first time feel accepted simply by a couple lines in a movie, who might no longer be suicidal, who might for a change have hope.  And that should be celebrated, not boycotted.