Christians United for Israel

Biblical scholar Ben Witherington posted recently on his blog about this disturbing video.  The video contains footage of a recent conference put on by Christians United for Israel, a political lobbyist group founded by John Hagee, a Christian televangelist who is well-known for his dispensational premillenialist interpretation of the "end times."  I tend to think that people will believe what they're going to believe about Revelation and the end times, and while I have my own views that I'm more than willing to discuss, I do not think it is a salvation issue, and therefore is not something I emphasize greatly.  I think it has become far too divisive an issue in many instances.

Having said that, I think that Hagee's particular brand of end times belief is dangerous.  Many of the comments in the video disturb me greatly, although in fairness it should be noted that the video is obviously assembled by someone who strongly dislikes the organization.  Witherington gives the following "top five" things about the video that he finds problematic:

1.  The Anti-Christ will be a person who will seek to make peace between the Arabs/Palestinians and the Jews;

2.  Armaggedon is something to look forward to, when we will have 'the cleansing of the earth';

3.  U.S. support for Israel should be unconditional, regardless of how they treat Palestinian Christians;

4.  If we want to participate in the second coming of Jesus, then we have to unconditionally support Israel from now until then, regardless of their policies or behaviors, otherwise we miss out on the parousia blessing;

5.  It's a Biblical idea to have a pre-emptive strike on Iran before they cause more trouble for Israel.

I really don't want to step on anyone's toes here.  At the same time, these ideas have very real ramifications in today's world that need to be addressed.  Christians United for Israel actively lobbies Congress for a) increased territory for Israel, and b) a unilateral, pre-emptive strike on Iran, based on the fear that they will cause problems for Israel.  I'll state unequivocally that I find this to be an immoral proposition.  Even within the Christian "just-war" tradition, there is little to no leeway in the idea of a "pre-emptive strike."  To suggest such a strike because of the fear they will cause problems for Israel, knowing that any war will inevitably lead to the death of many innocent civilians, not to mention soldiers, shows shockingly little regard for life, especially Muslim life (for the record, I also don't agree, as people in the video state, that Muslims are our "enemies" - our enemies are "not of flesh and blood" [Eph 6:12]).  From a Christian perspective, however, all life is valuable--Israeli life should not be considered more worth protecting than Arab life.

I do believe that these ideas are based on shaky theology.  Paul seems clear that the church is the "new Israel."  While I fully believe that the modern-day Israel has every right to exist, it no longer fulfills the role of God's "chosen people" - the Church universal, made up of both Jews and Gentiles, has assumed that role.  Again, I strongly believe that end times theology is not a salvation issue and therefore people should have great freedom in what they believe.  However, when that freedom leads to such potentially dire consequences for so many people, I think it is important to speak up.  And I'm frightened that so many Christians can so easily call for war on Iran, with the unavoidable loss of life that would accompany it.

Selling Weapons (again)--for what purpose?

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the Bush administration's decision to hold a weapons yard sale. (The gist of this story can be found here and here). I admit that my initial response is not overly supportive. This type of move seems reminiscent of decisions made over the past two decades. Weapons were (then) given to Iraq, Iran, and Afghani freedom fighters--many of which wound up being used against the US in some way.

The difficulty with this type of situation is that it is impossible to know (for certain) how the recipients of this sale will use these weapons. I am sure that when the previous (similar) sales took place, fear of the weapons being used against the US was not a controlling variable. The same is apparently the case here. The motivation for the sale does seem to be genuine:

The officials said the arms deal aimed to bolster the militaries of the Sunni Arab states as part of a strategy to counter what it sees as a growing threat posed by Iran in the region (BBC quote)

If this is indeed the case, and the Bush administration is seeking to offer additional support for such a purpose, then my hesitancy is (somewhat) lessened. As allies, it is completely logical to provide whatever (acceptable) assistance is needed. (Luke 6.31 would be appropriate here). However, the reason I remain somewhat reluctant to stand behind this choice--even if it is innocent--is due to the fact that it is all too easy for the weapons to wind up in the wrong hands. I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

Growing Pains

Friday night, I caught a segment of 20/20 dealing with teens who struggle with their height. From my own (continued) experience, I can sympathize with the overall dilemma. But, also from my own (continued) experience, I cannot support the way in which the two teens decided to deal with their situation. My lack of support comes partly because of the reasons provided by both the teens and their parents.

[Kaitlyn Christopherson] said the hardest part of being short is just feeling odd. "Feeling like you're different, like you're weird. You know, I want to be normal. I want what everybody else wants."[1]

[Ryan Hersch's] dad, Danny, says he fears Ryan might never grow past 5 feet. "Certain opportunities won't come his way. Out in the business world, dating girls."

To a (very small) degree, I can relate best to Kaitlyn's comments because that was my experience throughout high school. I had so many nicknames for my height that I honestly lost count. But here's the twofold deal:

1. that's just high school--and/or middle school. (Pre-)Teenage kids are simply vicious when it comes to acceptance and rejection. It's more of an exertion of assumed power and authority rather than statements of actual fact.
   
2. if Kaitlyn "feels" different or weird, then that's her choice. She can choose to ignore it, she can choose to stay away from people who make fun of her, she can choose to overcome the criticism[2], etc. But she didn't choose any of these options. She took the choice that only solved one problem: her height.

The problem that remained unsolved by Kaitlyn manifests itself in the struggles of Ryan. As before, (social) acceptance in the (pre-)teenage years is a troubling issue. What strikes me as odd is that the mentality of discriminatory acts by the "mean" kids are deemed ridiculous and childish. These mean kids just need to "grow up" and stop treating other kids the way they do. Yet, this same mentality apparently exists in the business world, which is ostensibly run by adults who have "grown up" and/or "grown out" of their childish ridiculousness.

The reporter covering this particular story responded to the comment made by Ryan's dad (noted above) in this way:

Studies show that tall men and women earn more money: A 6-foot-tall man earns on average almost $5,000 more than someone 5 feet 6 inches. In fact, each inch adds an average of almost $800 a year.[3]

He goes on to provide the following illustration:

Height even matters in elections. Twenty-one of the last 26 presidential elections were won by the taller candidate. President Bush was an exception, but even he's 6 feet tall. Bill Clinton was much taller than Bob Dole. The first President Bush was much taller than Michael Dukakis. Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower were all taller than their opponents. William McKinley in 1896 was the last president who was shorter than average.

The real problem is not that someone appears to be short. The problem is how people in society treat people who appear to be short. And, with respect to Kaitlyn and Ryan, this real problem is so seemingly insurmountable that the only solution is to inject a drug whose long-term effects are completely unknown. In fact, Ryan's mom was uncertain about whether or not the drug would cause cancer or affect his ability to have children. But, apparently, these concerns were secondary to Ryan's being picked on because of his height.

_________________________________________

[1] On a slightly ironic note, see a Good Morning America story, found here.
[2] See this story, which highlights the decision to overcome the social obstacles instead of trying to alter the physical ones.
[3] This quote comes from another site covering the same story, found here. This take on the story (thankfully) provides a good perspective to the whole dilemma (found at the end of p.3 and the start of p.4); though, it seemed to be included only as a side-note.

The Dangers of Torture and Denying Human Rights to Terrorists

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .

-The Declaration of Independence

What is interesting to note about this statement is where it claims human rights originate. It says that the rights we enjoy come from our Creator and that those rights are "unalienable." It is therefore disturbing when people, both Christian and non-Christian alike, say that it is okay to torture terrorists or to deny them other human rights because they are enemies of America and / or not American citizens. Here is the danger in such thinking: it makes one believe that our rights come by virtue of being American and not by virtue of our Creator endowing us with them. In fact, it was the very argument that these rights do not originate from one's government that made the founding fathers feel justified in rebelling against the sovereign of England. Putting aside, for now, the question of whether, in fact, our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable Rights or whether the revolutionary war was Biblically justified, if as Americans we stand behind this document and the reasoning behind its arguments, then it is impossible for us to also claim that those captured outside this country should not enjoy the same rights to fair justice as we do. Saying that our rights come by virtue of our Citizenship places the origins and foundations of our rights in the hands of government. If a government can grant rights, it can also take them away. Such a thought is antithetical with the Declaration of Independence. Our justification for setting up our own country is that our rights originate not from the government, but from our Creator. When we begin to lose sight of this understanding, we open the doors to allowing our freedom to be stripped from us, even under the guise of security.

Discussing Harry Potter

I love that the Church of England, rather than outright condemning the Harry Potter books as somehow promoting witchcraft and the occult (as if the "magic" in Harry Potter and witchcraft in the Bible were remotely the same), has chosen to release a study guide that uses Harry Potter as a starting point to discuss Christian themes.  Granted - such study guides can be done quite poorly, and I haven't seen this one.  Still, I think this is a much more healthy and constructive approach to the Harry Potter phenomenon than Christians condemning literature simply because it involves some form of "magic."

"Jesus used storytelling to engage and challenge his listeners," [Diocese of Oxford Bishop John] Pritchard noted.  "There's nothing better than a good story to make people think, and there's plenty in the Harry Potter books to make young people think about the choices they make in their everyday lives and their place in the world."

Jesus Action Figure?

Umm . . . so Wal-Mart is apparently set to begin selling Jesus action figures - along with other "faith-based toys" (think Samson and Daniel with a Lion's Den).  They'll only sell them in 420 stores though - only the stores that "sell a lot of Bibles."

I realize that some Christian parents want to give their children "wholesome" action figures, but seriously - what do they think their kids are doing with them?  I seriously doubt they're re-enacting Jesus healing the blind man . . . 

My favorite comment reacting to this news?  "Go ahead.  Cast the first stone!"  Hopefully they'll include that on the packaging.

Do Some Evangelical Leaders Perpetuate Cycles of Domestic Violence?

That's a pretty sobering question, isn't it?  The contention of this article is that some evangelical leaders (James Dobson and John MacArthur) help perpetuate domestic violence and endanger victims through their teaching.  I highly recommend reading the article - if the author's contentions are true, its pretty disturbing.  Here's one of the relevant quotes from the article regarding John MacArthur:

Andersen also takes on MacArthur: According to a tape titled Bible Questions and Answers Part 16, a member of Grace Community Church asked MacArthur how a Christian woman should react “and deal with being a battered wife.”

MacArthur’s answer contained “some very dangerous advice to battered wives. He said divorce is not an option to a battered wife, because the Bible doesn’t permit it.” While saying that it was okay “for the wife to get away while the pressure was on” it was with the understanding that she would return. “He warned wives to be very careful that they were not provoking the abusive situations. Because, he said, that was very often the problem.”

It seems at best irresponsible to indicate that wives are responsible for the abuse they endure (or husbands if the situation is reversed). Even if some case could be made that they were provoking their husbands, there is never an excuse for domestic violence. Ever. And if MacArthur is correctly represented here, the language he uses could easily be seen as justifying the abuse, whether or not that is his intention.

Religious leaders need to think deeply about the implications of the things they teach. I'm confident neither Dobson or MacArthur would ever want to condone, justify, or in any way help perpetuate domestic abuse. But that doesn't mean that the things they teach are not responsible for exactly those things.

Read the article - what do you think?

Bush, Freedom and Theology

Today I ran across this interesting post on Christianity Today's blog.  It's worth reading the actual post, but basically its about a backlash Bush has experienced lately regarding a recent comment he made about freedom.  Here's the quote:

The other debate is whether or not it is a hopeless venture to encourage the spread of liberty. Most of you all around this table are much better historians than I am. And people have said, you know, this is Wilsonian, it's hopelessly idealistic. One, it is idealistic, to this extent: It's idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief. I come at it many different ways. Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist.

A number of prominent bloggers have taken issue with this statement (Rich Lowry from National Review Online, Rod Dreher from Beliefnet, and Andrew Sullivan and Ross Douthat from the Atlantic Online).  While I might quibble with individual points in their arguments, I also am quite disturbed by the quote.  Some people don't think that a politician's religious beliefs should affect their policy decisions--I'm not one of those people.  My religious beliefs inform every decision I make, and I'm not sure why it should be different for politicians.  Unless one was to compartmentalize their beliefs as something separate from other areas of their life, I'm not sure how they could keep their religious beliefs from influencing their decisions.  With that said, I think there is a fine line to be walked--in a democracy and a pluralistic society, there are necessarily other voices besides the Christian voice that need to be heard.  Still, I believe that the Christian voice needs to be heard.

But I digress.  While I believe a politician's religious beliefs will inevitably influence their decisions, I find Bush's statement above highly suspect from a theological perspective.  Bush's claim seems to be that, because the gift of God to all is "freedom," this means that America should export its particular brand of freedom to the rest of the world.  The implication is that western democracy is somehow a part of the "freedom" which is God's gift.  And you simply cannot defend that position from the biblical text.  The "freedom" associated with being a Christian is freedom from slavery to sin--it is emphatically not political freedom.  If it was, Jesus would surely have worked for the overthrow of the Roman empire--instead, he tried to defuse Jewish nationalistic fervor which was focused on revolt against Rome.

Of course, this does not mean that it is necessarily bad to bring western democracy to other nations (although I think we need to be very careful in assuming that everyone else in the world does or should want our political system).  It does mean, however, that the spread of western democracy cannot be justified on the basis of Bush's vague "theology of freedom."  His attempt to do so completely misrepresents the kind of "freedom" Christ died to provide.

prejudice, profiling, proof-in-the-pudding (?) . . . what's the point being made?

Yahoo news, on behalf of the Associated Press, released this recent study on "racial disparities in prison".[1] I read the article in about 2 minutes and spent the next 5 minutes wondering what point the writer was trying to make. Nothing is ever clearly stated over why they statistics are presented.[2] There is one line that makes me think this article was leaning toward the idea of racial prejudice:

Such figures "reflect a failure of social and economic interventions to address crime effectively," as well as racial bias in the justice system, said Marc Mauer, the group's executive director. (emphasis added)[3]

My question would be: what proof is there in the overall findings that would justify a charge of racial prejudice? Unless I completely misread the article, there is absolutely nothing to support such a conclusion. The article is spotted with ratios and other key figures; but the inclusion of these numbers does not--in and of themselves--point in any direction other than what the numbers merely state. It would be the same as me saying: for every Dogwood tree in the state of Georgia, there are 58 evergreen trees.[4]

Let me take one more blurb from this article in order to highlight my struggles with its implicit argument:

In Iowa, blacks are imprisoned at a rate more than double the national average. For every 100,000 people, Iowa incarcerates 309 whites and 4,200 blacks, the study said.

Now, if the facts were: for every 4,200 blacks who were incarcerated only 10 of them actually committed crimes, then that would be proof of a serious flaw--i.e., a "racial bias in the justice system". The same would hold true for the other variable: if for every 309 whites who were incarcerated there were actually 5,000 who committed crimes worthy of jail time, and only the 309 were locked up; that would be a serious problem. But, if the facts were: if all 4,200 blacks who were jailed did in fact commit crimes that justified imprisonment, that's not prejudice or profiling--that's simple justice. The same holds true for the 309 whites who were sentenced--if they did it, they do the time.

If we as a people are going to uphold and promote social justice in this country (if not throughout the world), then we must face the facts and deal with them accordingly. We cannot simply alter our commitment to justice or cry out "racial prejudice" because the numbers are not comfortable and/or appealing to one race of people. Lady Justice, last time I checked, is still wearing a blindfold. She wears such a garb because the commitment to maintain justice is not racially determined. If for every 100,000 people, 4,509 people in the state of Iowa commit crimes, then justice requires that they are appropriately punished.

__________________________________________

[1] If the link ever goes cold, just Google "racial disparities in prison" and see if it gives you a link.
[2] See my post on the problems with statistical analysis, found here.
[3] Note that the implication of racial prejudice comes from the article writer and not Marc Mauer.
[4] I have no idea if this ratio is true. I simply made it up to illustrate the point.

Christians: Revolutionaries and Barbarians or Not?

My wife is going to camp next week with her home church as an adult volunteer. One of the books they are reading in preparation for the week is "The Barbarian Way" by Erwin McManus. First, I have not read the book, so the following is not a critique (though my wife does not seem very impressed so far). Instead, I would like to point out the notable trend in Christian discourse to adopt the vocabulary of war as a means of discussing the role of Christians in the world. This includes phrases like "be a solider for Christ" or references to Jesus as a "revolutionary" along with admonishments to follow Him as revolutionaries. The other day I watched a video of a presentation by Dr. Alan Keyes where I noted his frequent references to the war against the family and the war against religious freedom (there were a number of notable points in this presentation which I plan to address in a future post).

The question this raises is whether this trend is a positive one. Are Christians meant to be "barbarians" or "revolutionaries?" Certainly many of those who adopt these words hijack and nuance their meanings for specific purposes, but the question remains whether one can completely redefine words which already have meaning within our social discourse. As July 4, Independence Day, just past, it reminds that the word "revolutionary" has great significance in the American tradition. The American Revolution was a violent and bloody affair. Most revolutions are. Further, the language of war suggests fighting, strife, and death. Jesus' call, however, is different. While He was clear that violence against his followers would be a real possibility, perhaps even a likely one, He was equally clear that they were not to respond in kind.

So are we at war? Should we be revolutionaries or barbarian? The answer is both "yes" and "no." As is made plain by the words of Paul, if Christians are at war, it is a spiritual one and not one against other people. The problem then, is that when we talk about our various "Christian" causes (e.g. abortion, gay rights, marriage and the family, posting of the Ten Commandments, etc.) using the language of war, it tends to be groups of people (e.g. "those liberals") or organizations (e.g. the ACLU) we reference. Is this truly reflective of the kind of grace under which we live? Is this truly reflective of the salvation being offered to those people and the members of those organizations?

An Explanation of the Name: BPL in Daily Life

As an initial post, it seemed appropriate to explain what "The Learned Hand" refers to. For any of you who have some experience in the legal field, this explanation should not be surprising. In law school, instruction is done by individually reading assigned judicial opinions (the written copy of the court's ruling and its reasoning), almost always contained in a large textbook (think 9th grade English Class reader which contained lots of short stories, but with bigger words and duller stories), and then discussing them in class. At the beginning of almost all of the opinions is the name of the judge who wrote it. After reading enough of these, one begins to recognize the names of certain judges. One such judge was the Honorable Judge Learned Hand. As for why I decided to use it, well... its just a great name!

One thing Judge Hand did was write an opinion which became well known for utilizing something called the BPL test. Simply put the BPL test attempts to balance risk and utility. Utility balancing tests are used often in law, especially when the law is more like a standard (e.g. use the care a reasonable person would use in the same circumstance) instead of a bright-line rule (e.g. 55 MPH speed limit). The idea of BPL is that someone might be negligent (i.e. failed to use reasonable care) depending on the balancing of the risk of harm occurring * the gravity of the possible harm compared with the cost or difficulty in preventing the harm. For example, in one case, a man was electrocuted and killed when he moved his amateur radio antenna and hit a live electrical wire above his house. The question was, was the electric company negligent for not putting an insulated covering on the wires? A BPL analysis would attempt to balance the likelihood of someone coming in contact with the wire (if high enough, probably small) * the possible harm (likely death) with the cost of insulating all electrical wires ($$$). The idea is that if the cost is reasonable [utility] compared with the risk of harm [risk], then it would be negligent not to take the preventative act. On the other hand, if the cost was very high and the amount of prevention very small, then it might not be negligent to fail to take the preventative act.

Putting aside the difficulty in comparing money with human injury, this is a formula that people use all the time. The other day my wife and I were cleaning her car because we were trading it in. We were able to vacuum and clean the entire inside of the car in about 1 hr, but there was a certain spot on the inside molding that would not come clean. Since we only had a limited time to work on the car, we opted not to spend too much additional time on that spot. Why? Because of utility. For the small return (getting a small spot clean) it would take too much time and effort (perhaps a half hour or more when we only had 2 hrs total). Utility balancing is used throughout daily life. It is therefore not much surprise that it has found its way into law. Whether this is a good thing, though, especially when human life and money are compared on the scales of justice, is debatable.

Entrenched rhetorical positions

This morning, I came across this article which continues the debate over the issue of "global warming". The overall intent of the article is made abundantly clear with the chosen headline. The rhetorical position of Gore, per the author of the article, is twofold:

1. global warming is radically affecting critical elements of our environment manifesting itself via melting glaciers, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc
2. those who try to argue in the opposite position are nothing more than alarmist claims of "cynical and pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth."

The rhetorical position of the article's author (James Taylor) is also twofold, yet it argues in the opposite direction:

1. the so-called effects of global warming are not consistent with recent scientific data
   
2. the claims of Gore (and implicitly those who are associated with him) are themselves alarmist at best, which is made evident by the first point.

One has to wonder, first of all, if Gore would see the sources[1] noted (that supposedly refute his claims) as being a part of the "cynical and pseudo-studies" that he opposes. One also has to wonder of Taylor realizes the "alarmists" tendencies implicit in his own presentation.

The final concern, for me, at least, is whether or not such an implicit polarization of positions is ultimately beneficial. It appears as though more time is spent on defending one's arguments (and subsequently undermining the other's) than on finding the necessary (and crucial) common-ground that could usher in valuable results.
___________________________________________

[1] The sources noted in the article: American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, Nature, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geophysical Research Letters, New Scientist, Journal of Glaciology, Danish Meteorological Institute, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences

Conservapedia

So . . . ummm . . . a friend brought this to my attention. I'm curious what you guys think. I'll go out on a limb here and say what I think too.

Sites like this (and GodTube - I'm sure I could find other examples if I looked) frustrate me a bit . . . mostly for one reason. There seems to be a preoccupation in some Christian circles with creating a Christian subculture that acts as a parallel culture, where Christians can presumably feel safe and be themselves. Unfortunately, what usually occurs is that Christians become comfortable within this parallel culture and prefer to stay there. I'm not sure how this response fits with Jesus' admonition that Christians should be "salt and light" within society (see Matt 5:13-16).

My understanding of why Conservapedia was created comes from this article, in which the author says that wikipedia is "riddled with liberal bias." Therefore he felt the need to start a new version. I would suggest that perhaps a better approach, and one which takes Jesus' admonition into account, would be to work to add another perspective to wikipedia.

I would also, however, question the particular perspective offered by at least some of the articles on Conservapedia, which make claims that frankly would not be allowed on wikipedia (and with good reason). The site purports to be "the trustworthy encyclopedia," and one that "[has] certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts." However, some of the articles noted in the news article linked above are disturbing. Here are two examples for those who haven't read the article:

1. Femininity is the quality of being "soft spoken, childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive."
2. Hillary Clinton may suffer from "a psychological condition that would raise questions about her fitness for office" - "clinical narcissism."

It is worth noting that the creator of the site defends that article as "an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective." I'm not sure what that means - there is nothing objective about those statements. They clearly come from a conservative perspective, and from a dangerous one at that - unsubstantiated claims of that sort could likely be considered slander. However, my main point is not to defend Hillary Clinton - it is to say that there seems to be a severe lack of self-awareness on the part of the site's creator, and the site itself. To claim objectivity for a site that obviously associates itself with a conservative political perspective is a problem - as would be claiming objectivity for a site from a liberal political perspective.

However, this is veering towards politics and that wasn't my intent with this post. My main point, and the question I pose to any readers, is this: Is the creation of this site the best course of action for someone who doesn't like wikipedia? Stated more broadly: Is the creation of a specifically Christian alternative the best response to something in society that does not meet Christian approval? I don't think so - I think the harder road is to work within society and culture to present a truly Christian perspective. The "I'll take my toys and go play in another sandbox" response benefits no one, and does not honor Jesus' admonition to be "salt and light."