Of Morality, Politics and Tolerance

I've been thinking recently about the confusion that exists on both sides of the culture war between morality and politics. This confusion, or better stated, blending of the two makes rational discussion of how the legal structure of a country should (or should not) respond to moral questions.

First, some definitions. Morality refers to the personal choices one makes based on a standard of right and wrong. Some of these standards may be personal. For instance, I do not drink alcohol at all. That's a moral standard for me, but I would not be willing to say it would be wrong for everyone. Why? Because there is not definitive Biblical guidance on the subject, beyond not drinking to excess. Other moral standards are absolutes and should be held as absolute. The taking of a human life, stealing, lying, hating another, worshiping any God but Yahweh, etc. These are Biblical absolutes. These are the sort on which there can be no personal compromise. In other words, I can say, "Well, I don't drink, but if you don't feel guilty about it, go ahead." (Which is consistent with the guidelines in Romans 14). But I can't say with a clean conscience, "Go ahead and lie to get that contract. I wouldn't do it, but if it works for you fine."

Now, of course, I may well make a choice which violates my own moral standards. I may take a drink because of peer pressure or I may lie to get that contract, but I will feel the pangs of conscience over doing so.

The Law (which is formulated in most western cultures through some form of representative democracy through a political process) attempts to influence human behavior in such a way as to ensure the survival and prosperity of the society as a whole. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution states this principle well:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The emphasis is on society as a whole rather than on the control of the individual. As a practical matter, though, to provide for justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare and ensuring liberty, laws are often made which attempt to influence the moral choices people make such as forbidding robbery, controlling corporate monopolies, banning rape, prohibiting drunk driving, etc.

Laws attempt to be a practical response to a perceived societal need. Two individuals may see the same need, yet disagree about how to resolve it. For instance, a married couple may be facing financial difficulties. The wife may have taken a hiatus from her job until her children reach school age. She may feel the best way to resolve the financial problem is to go back to work. Her husband may think taking a second mortgage on the house is a better solution. They both agree on the problem, but disagree about how to solve it. Neither in such a situation would accuse the other of wanting the family to go under financially, they would simply be disagreeing about how to solve the problem.

Unfortunately, in the current culture war mentality such can be the case. As a Christian, I feel abortion to be a sin. However, I do not believe putting desperate women in jail for making a tragic mistake will solve the problem. I believe that we will do better by making the case against abortion as a personal choice rather than as a legal issue. Now, other pro-life Christians disagree with me believing that only the penalty of the law will bring about a solution. I respect their position, but cannot agree with them. Yet, I don't consider them evil people. I would hope that they could say the same about me.

In the culture war, though, such is wishful thinking. Whatever the issue abortion, death penalty, war, prayer in the schools, homosexuality both sides prefer to demonize the opposition instead of finding our common ground of understanding and debate without rancor the practicality of different approaches to helping people make the proper moral choices and how the law can and cannot help in that process.

This brings us to the issue of tolerance. Tolerance does not mean agreement. It means to be willing to allow a diversity of viewpoints to be shared without vilifying the proponents of those points of view. This is especially important to do when the point of view is being expressed by a fellow Christian. We must remember, just because a Christian disagrees with a particular legal solution to a moral question does not mean s/he doesn't have a moral standard. S/he may just not feel that enshrining it in the law is the best way to solve the problem.

Conversational Intolerance

I got this in an email earlier today:

http://blog.wired.com/biotech/2007/01/clone_me_clone_.html

C. Ben Mitchell, director of the Center for Bioethics
and Human Dignity, says, "The answer is in the
question itself. A cloned human being would in fact be
a person and would therefore be ensouled. To be human
is to be a person is to be a soul." This is neither an
argument in favor of human cloning nor the final
answer to various theological questions about the
existence or nature of a human soul, topics best left
to mouthbreathing Pentecostals, infallible men in
funny hats, and Mitch Albom. It is simply to say, as
Arthur Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical
Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania does, "If
humans have souls, then clones will have them, too."

It reminded me of a presentation I saw by author Sam Harris speaking on C-Span. He used a term about the religious right, but I think it applies to all parts of the culture war. He spoke about "Conversational Intolerance." In the field of conflict resolution we call them stoppers. They stop the conversation.

He used the example of stem cell research. He said, in essence, when you begin a conversation about stem cell research immediately someone raises the issue that a three-day old embryo is a soul and therefore use of those cells constitutes murder. No proof is offered. It is expected to be accepted on their word. No further discussion is possible. One cannot even continue the conversation about whether or not a handful of unformed cells is a human being with a soul. Thus, with a whole segment of society, the discussion ends right there.

He seemed to imply that only religious individuals are guilty of this conversational intolerance. I contend that the conversation stops not only because the religious right won't listen, but that the irreligious left won't either.

The above quote is a prime example of this "conversational intolerance" on the left. It implies that if you don't believe as he does you are a stupid, a religious fanatic, or don't think for yourself. I happen to be one of those "mouthbreathing Pentecostals," and a good friend of mine became a nun. Neither of us are idiots or fanatics. But by using that term, he cuts off any chance for a rational discussion of the merits of his logic.

Basically, it is an argument from definition and a circular one at that. If a human is cloned, then the human would have a soul because by definition a human is a creature with a soul. The argument avoids the possibility that someone might claim that a clone would not be human because it would not have a soul. In other words, he claims the clone is human and therefore has a soul because human beings have souls. The other side though could just as easily take the same logic and say the clone does not have a soul because by definition a clone is not human and only humans have souls. Therefore, a clone does not have a soul.

Regardless, of the merits of the argument, no one has time to evaluate it because the opposing side is characterized as unintelligent and therefore one should discount their arguments out of hand.

Perhaps it is only natural for us to avoid difficult ethical issues. By calling it sin by religious people or by simply labeling it as reactionary by the left we can avoid dealing with these tough issues and blame the other guy at the same time.

Truthfully, as a Christian, I feel in some groups intimidated by expressing anything other than the "party line" laid out by a handful of powerful televangelists and Christian activists. If I opposed the death penalty, say, in certain groups, or expressed an opposition to the war in Iraq, there would be no conversation of the merits of the argument, but a rather summary dismissal of my point of view as being unAmerican or even unChristian. We could not even engage in a Bible study on such questions. The article of faith is grounded more in a political religion than a Biblical one.

But I have found myself equally intimidated by the left. I am a college instructor. If I expressed a view that said that I believed that homosexual behavior is a sin, it would not be seen only as my opinion which I had formed through a study of my religion, I would be villified as a homophobe and bigot. It would be assumed I also opposed equal rights for gays and lesbians, job protection, fair housing and marital rights. Thatwould be wrong. I support all of that. One does not exclude the other. But the conversation would be stopped as soon as I expressed the less favored opinion among my peers.

In fact, the mention of God in any context other than some vague lifeforce of the universe in some settings causes people to pull away. Being a little religious is okay. Just don't let it interfer with your real life. And above all don't talk about a living, daily relationship with God. Certainly, don't talk about Jesus as anything more than a good man or prophet.

I remember back in college having some wonderful arguments with an atheist on the debate team. We were pretty evenly matched in terms of debating skill. Neither of us were ever condemned for our beliefs. Indeed, we didn't even condemn each other. I doubt such conversations would be approved of on either side of the political spectrum today.

It's time we start conversations about these difficult issues instead of stopping them by refusing to listen to the opposite site.

Who's Really Pro-Life? The Stem Cell Controversy

I have to admit that I have not totally settled about whether embryonic stem cell research using frozen embryos which would be discarded by fertility clinics should be allowed or not. My problem with this is that I am Pro-Life and it seems like this is a no-win Pro-Life issue.

On one hand, we have embryos consisting of a few cells which might become human beings if implanted in a woman, although there is no guarantee that they would. But you have at the very least potential human beings here who would be destroyed. On the other hand, though, treatments for life-threatening diseases probably could be developed using lines of stem cells produced from embryos which would likely be destroyed anyway.

In other words, whatever way you turn on this issue, lives are at stake. Is it pro-life to deny research that might produce life saving treatments for living human beings to save potential lives. Or do we destroy potential lives in order to develop potential treatments which may or may not work?

Sloganeering won't bring us close to resolving this type of ethical dilemma. We have to decide which lives are more important frozen embryos likely to be destroyed or kept frozen indefinitely or children and adults with diseases which might be cured by treatments which would certainly deny those embryos any chance at life.

Frankly, I don't have a good answer for this. But I suspect that as we continue into the future more such dilemmas will emerge and simply saying you are "pro-life" or "pro-choice" won't bring you any closer to making a rational assessment of the ethical consequences.

I must say, I'm disturbed by the idea that either way you go on this issue, you are denying someone the right to life.

Beyond Greetings - The True Meaning of Christmas

My favorite TV Christmas Special is A Charlie Brown Christmas I like it because of one particular scene in the show. Charlie Brown is a bit depressed around Christmas time. Everyone is talking about what they want Santa to bring them. Lucy tells Charlie that Christmas is a "Big commercial racket run by a syndicate in the east." Charlie Brown is called on to direct the Christmas play and no one listens to him. They are all into their own thing. Charlie brings in a small natural Christmas tree because he thinks it needs him and everyone laughs at him.

Finally, in frustration, Charlie yells, "Doesn't anyone know what Christmas is all about?" Linus steps forward and says, "Sure, Charlie Brown, I do" A spot light shines down on him and he recites:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
(Luke 2:8-14)

He concludes by saying, "That's what Christmas is all about Charlie Brown."

It seems that the commercial interests, the right wing radicals, the left wing radicals, even the passionate Christian activists have forgotten this. We are so focused on what is said in a greeting or a corporate ad campaign that we have forgotten "the reason for the season." Whether we say "Happy Holidays," "Merry Christmas," or even "Merry X-mas" we all know the holiday being referred to. It is the one and only national holiday based entirely on a Biblical event. We can't escape that.

This is much more important than a word in a greeting. Some people have become so focused on the word "Christmas" they have forgotten about the Christ of Christmas. He came to bring Peace on Earth, Good will toward men, to lead us to glorify God. The recent debates have done little to promote peace, good will or the glory of God. And it has done the devils work by distracting from the true meaning of Christmas.

Christmas cannot be separated from Good Friday and Easter. They are a package deal. Although Christmas has become the most celebrated holiday in our culture, the early church celebrated Easter for almost two centuries before celebrating Christmas. Why? It was what Christianity was all about. The miracle of the virgin birth would be only a physiological novelty or a less vulgar version of the Pagan stories of young women seduced by anthropomorphic Gods giving birth to heroes. But this story is different. This is not a half-divine hero. This is not even the story of a great teacher. This is the story of a redeemer, who pays the price of redemption by his own death. This is the Holy God who becomes the perfect man so he can die, not for his own sins, but for those of others. He is not dying for the "sin of the world" in the abstract, but for my sins, for those times I was hateful, or prideful, when I lied, when I stole, when I wanted someone dead, when I was unkind, when I did wrong. He died for me. He died for you. He didn't die for the "sin of the world" in the abstract. He died for the "Sin of Terri" up close and personal. He was the redeemer and the redemption together.

And then he rises from the dead, triumphant on the third day. He gives us the hope of eternal life. Not just an extension of our regular lives indefinitely, but of a transformed, transphysical existence which transcends the boundaries of regular physical existence. It is a great promise and a great hope.

The fight over Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas will soon be over. It will be a small scrimmage in the culture war, soon forgotten. What will endure is the work of Christ on the Cross. God gave you and me a gift. It is a gift of eternal life. It lies under your Christmas tree today (even if you don't have a tree). It is wrapped with a tag with your name on it and signed "Love Jesus". Will you leave it under the tree, or will you open it up? The choice is yours. He gave you the gift. But will you receive it.

Have a Merry Christmas, a Happy Holiday Season, but most of all, have a joyous Easter of the Soul as you celebrate your own Resurrection in Christ.

Corporate Greed, Timidity, Hypocrisy and Merry Christmas

Okay, for the past several days I've been focusing mostly on the anti-"happy holiday" crowd and the silliness of such an outcry over a rather minor point. But now, to be fair as a refugee from the culture war, I must say, the corporations stumbled big time on this one through a combination of greed, timidity and hypocrisy.

Certainly, many businesses instituted a "Happy Holidays" policy which played down or eliminated any mention of the word Christmas. This was likely done in part to reach out to those who do not celebrate Christmas and to be inclusive of such holidays as Kwanzaa and Channuka. Even though those celebrating such holidays represent a small portion of the total population when measured by millions of purchases in hundreds of stores, the potential profit is significant. And, even conservatives should agree that the main business of business is business.

However, sometimes you can be pennywise and pound foolish. Once such a policy became known, they were bound to know the Political Religious Right would make a meal of it. Ironically, this is one place where two traditional allies Big Business and Conservatism found themselves on opposite sides of the fence. The fact that there have not been wholesale firings of clerks saying "Merry Christmas" or any real sanctions or the fact that Christmas decorations dominate does nothing to ameliorate the fanatics on either side of the aisle.

Secondly, businesses which were founded by risk takers have been inherited by risk managers. Fear of giving offense in even minor ways has reached new levels in society. This is not without reason. I have heard unofficially that some businesses are claiming that they were in fear of lawsuits if they didn't back away from the use of "Merry Christmas." Of course, such a lawsuit would have little if any chance of even making it to court, simply fighting the filing could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. They probably figured that no one would be offended by "Happy Holidays" which was a reasonable assumption. But we live in unreasonable times and suddenly they find themselves caught between pressure groups being used as pawns in the culture war. And as we all know, pawns are the first pieces to be sacrificed in a chess match.

The thing that personally irritates me is the basic hypocrisy behind this. If the point was to be more inclusive of diverse people and their religious systems, the stores need to do something more than change their greeting. Look around these stores. Their clerks and signs say "Happy Holidays" but their merchandise and decorations say "Merry Christmas". You see Christmas Trees (even if called Holiday Trees, only one holiday uses a tree for decoration these days and that's Christmas), Christmas decorations, Santa Clauses, Frosty's, Nativity Scenes, Angels, Stars, Christmas Cards (with a tiny section of Channuka cards featuring little or no selections if any), Santa Hats on every head, and Christmas movie DVD's everywhere. The fact is that no one entering the store would know any other holidays were celebrated in December.

No matter what is said at the door, the truth is, it's a Christmas promotion. The stores would respond rightly that Christmas decorations dominate, because that is the most widely celebrated holiday with nearly 98 percent of the U.S. population celebrating it in some way. So, then why not be honest about it. You are targeting those who celebrate Christmas as your main customers. Why not be honest about it? You are not really promoting Channuka or Kwanzaa. So, why pretend to be interested in consumers who celebrate those holiday? Until you have a menorah in a display next to an angel or a Santa Claus, don't pretend that a generic greeting at the door makes your store one committed to diversity.

Again, the silliness of the culture war is seen. Greed and Timidity lead to a poor, offensive, and ineffective policy to give the illusion of inclusiveness. And gave the Religious Right a cause to be angry even at the most joyous and happy time of the year.

Merry Christmas to All. (Like I have a consumer base to worry about?)

The Real Threat to Christmas

I was watching “Miracle on 34th Street” (the original version with Natalie Wood as Susan) the other day. In one scene Kris Kringle complains about how commercialism is ruining Christmas. Alfred, the young janitor Kris has befriended, says, “Yeah, there are a lot of ‘ism’s out there, but commercialism is one of the woist.”

Certainly, I find that the greatest dangers to the true spirit of Christmas are not coming from some left wing conspiracy or “political correctness” but from some of those “ism’s” we see.

Let’s start with Alfred’s – Commercialism. As we noted in another posting, there is no way to actually separate the sacred from the secular in Christmas celebrations and, indeed, I’m not sure they can or should be separated. And part of the “secular” celebration of Christmas is the giving of gifts. What has started as a way to remember others in a special way, has turned into what a former pastor of mine called “an orgy of spending.” I knew one woman who would give a price tag to every gift when she was asked what she got. For instance, she wouldn’t say, “John, gave me a necklace.” Rather she would say, “John, gave me a $500 necklace.”

I know one woman who was offended that she was given the same gift as another woman in her office. She read some sort of insult into that fact. One wonders if the other woman who received the same gift felt the same way.

Indeed, it seems as if Christmas is defined by the gifts given. A Christmas tree without gifts under it seems barren. And Christmas Day is over once the gifts are opened in many households.

Businesses then respond to this and amplify it through their advertising and marketing of Christmas (whether they use the name or not) as being basically about the gifts given. Love = Expensive Gift seems to be the equation taught.

But that isn’t the only “ism” that is hurting Christmas. A second is secularism. I remember my mother telling a joke when I was a child about two women looking into a store window. Among the other Christmas decorations was a Nativity scene. One woman asked the other what that was, and the other woman explained. Upon hearing it, the first woman snorted in disgust, “They’re dragging religion into everything nowadays.”

Certainly, the secular is part and parcel of Christmas and always has been, but at it’s heart isthe sacred celebration of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Even if one only sees him as a great teacher, he is worthy of the honor. However, in our popular culture you would think the holiday is about a jolly old fat man in a red suit. In fact, in more than one TV movie, Christmas is “saved” by someone helping out Santa in some way. At least, the book The Grinch Who Stole Christmas without mentioning the Nativity made the point that Christmas came without the decorations or gifts or dinner of “roast beast.”

Only one of the classic TV specials aired on the major networks even mentions Christ. That one is “A Charlie Brown Christmas” in which Charlie Brown in desperation asks if anyone knows the meaning of Christmas, and Linus steps into the light and tells the Christmas story.

I was watching a show on the Bravo network called something like “100 Things we Like about the Holidays.” Someone mentioned this special and said, “It seems like every other special sort of tap dances around this, but Linus says it outright.” Indeed, our whole society seems to be tap dancing around what we are celebrating.

While I am a big believer in the separation of Church and State, I have problems with Nativity Scene lawsuits. It’s like saying you can’t have a picture of Lincoln on display on Lincoln’s birthday. I can see fairness coming into play. You could add a menorah and some kwanza candles for the other holidays, but it seems odd that you have a birthday celebration and the one being honored is hardly ever mentioned.

Perhaps the greatest danger to Christmas is Activism and Fanaticism. And this comes from both the right and the left. I already mentioned in passing the Nativity scene lawsuits which marginalize the very core of the Christmas celebration. But the right wing, fundamentalists are not without fault here either. I’ve noticed that this year some Christians are almost militantly snapping “Merry Christmas” not so much as a greeting but as a quasi-political statement. Christmas itself has been co-opted by the conservatives as their own private property and are using it to drive a wedge between people of faith. By creating this false war on Christmas, they are hoping to undermine their political opponents. They are casting liberals in the role of a 21st century Scrooge trying to ban Christmas.

On the other hand for the past 20 years or so, there have been a core of Christian extremists who claim that Christmas is a pagan celebration and should not be celebrated. These condemn Christmas trees, decorations, gifts, and dinners as part of pagan debauchery because of the historical fact that Christmas was scheduled at about the same time as a Pagan celebration by the fourth century church in order to evangelize the pagans.

These are the real dangers to Christmas. The holiday will never be banned. It’s a big moneymaker. However, its vitality, its spirit, can be drained. But that can only happen if we let it. As for me, I choose to be joyful and try to remember the lessons of Peace, Love, and Joy taught by this season. I will remember the Christ child born in a manger, attended by angels and adored by shepherds and magi alike. I will also remember that child grown to an adult, teaching a wayward generation and eventually dying for my sins and being raised again giving me the hope of eternal life. I will remember my lessons of Christmas and none of the “ism’s” can take them away from me.

History or Nostalgia?

One characteristic of the culture war seems to be the substitution of nostalgia for history. I was watching a TV special about the history of the celebration of Christmas recently in which one historian commented that each generation remembers the Christmases they experienced as children and assume that those celebrations were and will continue to be eternal.

The evidence of history however shows that the celebration of Christmas has not been a completely stable tradition even in Western Civilization. For instance, the celebration of Christ’s birth was banned by the early church. While the death and resurrection of Christ was celebrated as early as the second century A.D., the birth of Christ was not celebrated until the middle of the fourth century.

The early church lived in a world where emperors were deified and their birthdays were made holidays usually celebrated with drunken reveling and bloody gladiatorial games. The church felt it was wrong to celebrate the birth of Christ as if He was an earthly ruler. Early church leaders even banned scholars from attempting to ascertain the date of Christ’s birth.

As the sway of paganism in Rome was being displaced by Christianity in the fourth century, Church leaders saw an opportunity to evangelize the “barbarian” Germanic tribes through the creation of a winter festival to coincide with pagan festivals. So, even though, much of the best scholarship of the time placed the birth of Christ in late March or early April, they decided to celebrate His birth in December (and early January).

So, the celebration of a Mass in honor of Christ (Christ-Mass) was instituted. Some pagan customs were Christianized. Holly, for instance, came to represent the shed blood of Jesus.

As an institution in the Catholic church, Christmas was carried over into the “high church” protestant traditions of the Lutheran and Anglican churches. However, with the rise of Puritanism, the traditions of both Catholicism and the “high church” were rejected. So, when the puritans immigrated to the New World, they made a conscious effort to reject such celebrations.

Massachusetts colony actually had a law on the books banning the celebration of Christmas which was on the books until the mid-1800’s. Other colonies (particularly those with higher numbers of Catholics or Lutherans) were less strict, but still the celebration of Christmas was not widespread in the New World. Even the United States Congress for it’s first 67 years did not recess for Christmas.

It wasn’t until the early 1800’s that Christmas began to make a comeback in the New World. But even then, it was a largely secular holiday. Most protestant churches had their roots in the puritan tradition and did not generally have Christmas programs. It was only when they saw their congregations visiting Catholic churches during the holidays that they began in the late 1800’s to respond with programs of their own.

The American tradition of Christmas has not ever been a mostly sacred holiday. It has always been largely a secular one. I’m not saying this to justify such an attitude but rather to create a perspective. Before we look back at some “ideal” time when Christ was the center of Christmas is more fantasy than historical reality. Even in the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods, Christmas celebrations often became bacchanalian events with little concern about the Christ child.

We cannot look to history for a period when Christ was the center of Christmas. Such periods are brief, if they existed at all. However, we can individually make Christ the center of our Christmas and create a “historical” tradition in our own families that they will carry on to the next generation. The culture at large may not keep Christ always in Christmas, but you and I can.

Orson Wells, War of the Worlds and the "War on Christmas"

In 1938 Orson Wells and the Mercury Theatre of the Air threw the American public into panic with the broadcast of an adaptation of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds. Presented as a news broadcast, the radio drama "reported" on an invasion of the world by martians. Those who had not heard the beginning of the program actually believed a real threat was posed by martians. People panicked, packed churches, evacuated towns, picked up arms and even committed suicide all because of an imaginary threat.
So, what does this have to do with Christmas? Well, in 2005 we have another imaginary war being reported, and as in 1938, the media is at the center of this tempest in a teapot.

Perhaps no single event emphasizes the silliness of the culture war more than the "attack" on Christmas being reported by Christian activists and even the mainstream media. To listen to some in the media, you would believe that the celebration of Christmas is threatened by governmental and corporate efforts.

Of course, a drive through any town or a stroll through any department store will belie the idea that Christmas as a celebration is in any real danger. At the intersection of the two busiest streets in my small town is a 30 foot Christmas tree. Looking out my window I see an inflated Santa on the lawn across the street from my house. I'm listening to the traditional Christmas music channel on MusicMatch radio, specifically "Joy to the World." A couple of mornings ago, I heard the high school marching band practicing "Silent Night" and "Angels We have heard on High."

So, why are the reports of the death of Christmas circulating on cable news shows and through the various Christian media? Is this totally made up? Where did it come from?

Well, there is not a simple answer. But much of it comes from two Fox News commentators John Gibson who wrote the book The War on Christmas: How the liberal plot to ban the Sacred Christian Holiday is Worse than you Thought. I must have missed the newscast where anyone proposed banning Christmas. I'm sure the corporate interests alone would squash that one.

But hold on, according to some these corporate interests are in on the plot. They point out that many retail outlets do not use the phrase "Merry Christmas" in their advertising. This is true enough. Many do use Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings. Isn't that an attack on Christmas?

Well, take a stroll down their aisles. We see Christmas trees, Christmas decorations, Christmas wrapping paper, Christmas Cards, Santa Clauses, and even nativity scenes for sale. The last I heard none of these were used in the celebration of Hannuka or Kwanza. In fact, you would be hard put to find a Mennorah or Star of David in any one of them.

But what about that "Happy Holidays" policy? Well, it's an attempt to appear to be inclusive of all the holidays when in reality the only holiday actually represented in the decorations is Christmas.

Besides you can put up the signs before Thanksgiving and not take them down until after New Years. And, in spite of reports to the contrary, there are no official punishments for clerks saying "Merry Christmas."

Companies are out to make money. By including Hannuka and Kwanza (even with using Happy Holidays) they hope to increase the bottom line. That is something that pro-business conservatives should understand.

So, what is really up? Just my take on it. I think some Christian activists are afraid that people will stop being angry for a few minutes over the holidays. Activism of any sort requires anger and a type of us-vs-them attitude. Christmas, by it's nature, inspires unity, setting aside differences, and extending love and tolerance (not acceptance or agreement, but tolerance) of others.


So, they begin to stir up some sort of false controversy. However, unlike Orson Wells' broadcast, where the panic was unintentional, the outrage is intended. They actually hope that people will believe that there is some sort of attack on our most beloved holiday. That way, they can promote other aspects of their agenda. Now, some parts of that agenda I agree with, but it is disingenuous to try to create a "war" where none exists.

This is the ultimate silliness.

9/11 Remembered: A Christian Response to an American Crisis

[This was my first response to the tragedy of 9/11. At first, I felt that there might be a national revival because of so many people turning to God in the midst of the tragedy. Of course, such fear driven conversions rarely persist. But I thought it might shake up America's arrogance and help us re-evaluate our values. Unfortunately, we have become more arrogant and fear has actually caused many of our values to erode. The America I grew up in did not start wars (at least not openly), detain prisioners of war years after the war was declared over, and didn't condone, excuse or turn a blind eye to torture. Unfortunately, I'm afraid many Christians swept along with the cultural tides of our time have let this national paranoia erode many of their values as well. I think in remembering that tragic day we must mourn not only the dead, but the living legacy of 9/11 in terms of the fear and hatred it has spawned in the hearts of many of our citizens. This article is as relevant today as it was when it was published just a few days after the event.

A Christian Response to an American Crisis

There are events that happen that years later you will remember exactly where you were when you heard the news. For me, those events include the death of President Kennedy, the Lunar Landing, the Challenger disaster and last Tuesday, September 11, 2001 when the World Trade Center towers were leveled and the Pentagon Damaged by terrorists using fully loaded jet airliners as flying bombs.

The numbers themselves are staggering. The 110-story World Trade Towers brought down to a 5 story pile of rubble. Four or five other buildings nearby destroyed. Over 200 firefighters and police killed in rescue efforts. Nearly 200 persons killed at the Pentagon and close to 5000 lost in New York. 50,000 National Guard and Reservists called to active duty. Troops mobilizing around the world.

It's a frightening time. The question is how do we as Christians respond to this tragedy? Here are a few reflections in the shadow of this event.

Pray. The next few weeks are going to be difficult ones for everyone. As the days pass and bodies are recovered, hope will wane and vanish for the families and friends of the victims. Pray that God will be with them during this time of grief. Also pray for the world's leaders. Difficult, dangerous decisions must be made in the coming months which are going to require divine wisdom.

Manage Your Fear. Yes, these are scary times. We do need to take reasonable precautions, but we also need to continue to live our lives. Scripture says that He has not given us a "spirit of fear but of love and power and a sound mind" (2 Tim. 1.7) Fear brings one into bondage (Romans 8.15). Besides, God is our refuge and our strength. He will either keep us safe or take us home. Either way, we are in His hands. Fear steals your testimony. If people see you trembling in fear over the affairs of this life, you cannot point them to your source of hope. But if you are confident in the time of trouble then you have the opportunity to share why you can feel that way.

Continue in Love. Right now we are experiencing a lot of anger. The desire for revenge and retribution is strong. We also feel frustration in not knowing exactly who is responsible for these horrific attacks, how to apprehend them and how to bring them to justice. Consequently, many people are expressing that anger and frustration by venting it on people of Arabic descent. Just recently, at least two people have been killed simply because of this heritage. I have a number of Arabic students in my classes. It was nearly a week before they returned to class and they have been distant in their interactions with other students. We must not allow a righteous anger to turn into unfocused hatred. God loves your Arab neighbor just as much as He loves you. And by extending that Love to them at this difficult time, you may well be an instrument of God which can draw them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Redeem the Time. We have seen much talk of God and Prayer in the public arena in the past few days. Admittedly, much of it is window dressing. A tragedy is often followed by a public call to prayer or reference to God. But the magnitude of this particular tragedy has shaken people's confidence to a point that there is an opportunity for witnessing like never before.

We as a people have in the past century placed our trust in our economy and our military might. We have felt safe from upheavals often found in other countries because we are a wealthy nation with a strong military. The attack struck deep at both our centers of economic power and military might. We have seen that even the greatest, wealthiest, and most powerful country in the world is vulnerable to attack from a relatively small group of conspirators. So, if we can't trust in the power of this world, what can we trust? This is the question that many people are asking themselves now.

Of course, we have the answer. You can trust Jesus Christ. I was impressed that in much of the talk about prayer and God among our media and political leaders this past few days, I have heard nothing about Jesus. People are thinking about God, but not about salvation. We have a golden opportunity to lead them from that God consciousness to Christ Consciousness. Our message is simple. This world is unpredictable. Life is often tenuous. But there is hope. Jesus Christ came to this world, taught us how to live, then took upon himself our sin, died and rose again so that we might be made Children of God and given peace and comfort in times of trouble and the hope of an eternity with Him.

Perhaps today, you are one of those who are feeling anxious. You fear that which is coming on the earth. Perhaps you have been trusting in all the wrong things. Perhaps, you are looking for meaning in the midst of a senseless world. You have wanted to seek God in this time of trouble, but don't know how. You want peace, confidence and assurance that God really does have everything under control. You can have that peace today. Admit that you are a sinner, that you fall short of what you know God wants for your life. Turn away from that sin and ask Christ to come into your life, take control and give you that hope of eternal life. If you want you can pray this prayer right now.

"Dear Lord Jesus, I want to have your peace in my heart. I ask you to forgive me of my sins, to come into my heart and help me live a righteous life. I commit myself to you and promise to live for you. Thank you for coming into my life today. Amen"

If you prayed that prayer, you are now part of God's forever family. Your name has been written in His Book of Life, you have a home in heaven and a place in His family here on Earth. You need to connect with a good Bible Believing church.

Whatever your circumstance today, remember, no matter what happens GOD IS FAITHFUL! He will be with us during this time, and that comfort is one thing the terrorists cannot destroy.

No Spirit of Fear!!!

[This was amazing. I was looking for another article I wrote immediately following 9/11 and discovered this one. At the time I didn't realize how deep our national paranoia would eventually run. I couldn't have imagined people taking off their shoes before getting on a plane or being barred from taking cough medicine on a plane. I couldn't imagine people of color agreeing that racial profiling could be a good thing (as long as it isn't the police officer on the corner pulling them over because they came into the wrong neighborhood). The troubling compromising of civil liberties, issuance of secret search warrants, unwarranted wiretapping, the turning over of virtually everyone's phone records, and the justification of torture out of fear of terrorism. So, this article for Christians following 9/11 is even more on point today. Read it in light of what has happened in the past 5 years as a result of rampant fear of terrorism.]

No Spirit of Fear

The events of September 11 left America with more than buildings destroyed and lives lost. They left us with a spirit of fear. These attackers are not called terrorists for nothing. Their most powerful weapons are not bombs or guns, explosives or anthrax. Their most powerful weapon is fear.

A few recent news stories shows how pervasive this fear has become. An airliner was forced to land and fighter jets scrambled because a man of Arab descent was smoking in the rest room and became angry when told to stop. An IRS processing facility was shut down today because a woman found some sort of powdery substance on an envelope. Tweezers and fingernail files are not being allowed on planes. While these may or may not be reasonable precautions given the current situation, they are indicative of the level of fear present in the country.

This spirit of fear is even infecting the church. I heard someone a couple of weeks ago decide not to go to a church meeting unless she could go with someone, because she was afraid.

A month after the attacks, many people are still depressed and unable to sleep for fear. This brings to mind the scripture referring to the last days with "Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken" (Luke 21.26) Yet, I Timothy 1.7 says "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." If anything, Christians should be the calm presence in the midst of the storms facing us today.

So, then how can be fight the fear.

1) Trust in God first, and man second.

While security precautions are good, your protection as a Christian does not depend on them. The Psalmist said, "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God." (Psalm 20.7) Our security lies in God. Does this mean we don't
take reasonable precautions? Certainly not. As always, one needs to lock their doors at night, be aware of their surroundings, be patient with the delays at airports, but lets not become obsessive about safety. Nothing is totally safe, but God is always faithful.

2.) Don't Overdose on News Reports.

Certainly we are all interested in what is happening, but don't spend hours of your time watching the same scenes of the World Trade Towers collapsing. Set a limit on the number of hours you spend watching such reports. Get more of your news from newspapers and news magazines. These are less visually involving than television.

3.) Turn a deaf ear to rumors.

Especially with the Internet, rumors can spread rapidly. Somebody'scousins, sister's wife's best friend's husband's brother heard from his butcher whose son is in the CIA that..... These types of stories are invariably untrue and serve only to inspire unwarranted fear. If there is a legitimate, imminent, known threat, the official agencies will make the announcement through regular media outlets. Even in these cases listen for specifics. A warning that "Officials are reporting that a terrorist attack is likely to occur during the next few weeks, possibly on the west coast," may be useful for law enforcement officials to keep their eyes open, but means very little in the way of assessing your own personal vulnerability.

4.) Assess the real level of personal vulnerability.

The events of September 11 were horrific, but put in perspective, your chances of being killed in an automobile accident are much higher than being killed in a terrorist attack even on the ground in the Middle East. If you live in a small town, it is unlikely that you will be hit by a terrorist attack simply because, terrorists go after population centers for the most carnage. If you fly, consider that only a few planes have been hijacked out of American airports in the past 25 years.

5.) Live a normal life.

If you cancel your vacation plans, stop going to large gatherings, fear drinking water, check for bombs everywhere, stop going to concerts, plays, or evangelistic crusades, or willingly sacrifice your basic freedoms of travel, assembly, and free speech then the
terrorists have already won. Fear is their weapon and their goal. They have no realistic hope of conquering a superpower, but they can bring us to our knees in fear and in so doing we conquer ourselves. The pay off for conquering the fear in our own hearts is more than simply more joyful living for us as Christians, but by replacing the spirit of fear with the spirit of confidence in Christ, we can share peace with others around us. We can point those who are fearful around us to the one who has conquered all fear.

In so doing, we defeat Satan's plans. We turn what he meant for evil into something God is transforming into good.

When the terrorists win!

I was browsing through some writing I had done years ago and came across this which I wrote about a week after 9/11. If you remember, there was a general panic. I knew a woman who didn't even want to come to a county wide church conference because she was afraid to go out in public -- and we live in California!

The problem is that they are called "terrorists" for a reason. They do not realistically expect to invade America and turn it into an Islamic state by force of arms. They don't even realistically expect to do that in Isreal. Their victory comes in the fear of their enemies. When their enemies are afraid of them, they have succeeded as surely as if we signed articles of surrender with Al-Queida.

I was trying to put that into words and wrote the following email to a discussion group:

I will take a trip to San Francisco this weekend and cross the Bay Bridgefrustrated by traffic delays but not in fear of attack because if I don'tTHEY WIN!

I will plan a trip for summer without thinking about airport security,because if I don't THEY WIN!

I will begin my retirment investment portfolio and I will include some bluechip stocks in the portfolio without fear of loss because if I don't THEYWIN!

I look at my Arab neighbors without suspicion, hatred or fear. Because ifI don't THEY WIN!

I will greive for the loss of so many innocents, but I will not live as a slave to fear or hatred, because if I don't THEY WIN!

I will walk tall and straight without fear.I will breathe the air of my homeland as a Free American, and I will not give up freedom for safety, because if I don't THEY WIN!

Since September 11 many of us have let the terrorists win by succumbing to fear and hatred, by being willing to bargain away our freedoms for the illusion of perfect safety.

Terrorists have no goal of taking over Governments or running countries. Their goal is to punish those whom they hate with fear.

When a country gives into that fear and the people live their lives based on avoiding attack or responding to such attacks, whenpolice are replaced by soldiers, when freedom is considered a luxury, when the people live their lives looking over their shoulders in fear, when hatred and suspicion reign, when I fear man more than I trust God,then THEY WIN!!!

Whether they win or not is my choice.

And I for one, will not let them win.

Religious Neutrality or Religious Freedom?

Today, I got a flyer in my mail box at the college. It read:

Stressed Out!

Difficulty Concentrating Don't Medicate....

Meditate

Free Meditation Instruction for faculty, staff, and students

It then gave the time and place. And it was printed with the college logo on the page. Okay, I don't have problems with meditation, per se. Some forms are simply relaxation techniques with no religious significance. And on the religious side, many religious systems practice meditation of different types including Christians and Jews as well as Eastern Religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. Without knowing how the instructor would approach the practice, I couldn't say whether it would be essentially secular in nature or religious. After all, I don't know that they are going to have the person sit cross legged on the floor and chant mantras.

However, that's the problem. There is a picture on the page of a woman doing exactly that. She is sitting in the lotus position touching thumb and forefingers together. I had to wonder, if instead of that pose, she had been kneeling serenely with hands folded together what would happen.

Transcendental Mediation and yoga based meditation is a religious practice. The body positioning and the chanting of the mantras have religious significance as much as saying "Our Father who art in heaven" has for the Christian.

As readers of this blog know by now, I am not exactly a fan of the religious right (nor the religious left for that matter) but some of the more intelligent writers on that side of the culture war have made the point that there is a type of hypocrisy bound up in the protestations of religious neutrality by school administrators. They claim that the issue of religious neutrality only arises when the religion in question is Christianity.

For instance, one university is requiring reading from the koran, but have no such similar requirement for Biblical study. Turbins are allowed in some school districts, but crosses and crucifixes banned. This is yet another example that religious neutrality tends to work mostly against Christians.

I believe in religious neutrality in the schools. I oppose prayers led by administrators, posting of the 10 commandments, and I really don't care if the Pledge of Allegiance includes the words "under God" or not considering that they were added at a later date anyway. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. One may argue that even though it is a religious practice, it is being used for a secular purpose - Relaxation.

One can argue that saying Christian prayers also can reduce stress. And those on the left argue -persusasively - that the teaching of "intelligent design" as an adjunct to the theory of evolution is simply a back door attempt to get the book of Genesis taught in the classroom. (Personal opinion is that at the lower grades it is silly to discuss creation from either perspective since the lack of evidence on both sides is overwhelming).

If this was simply a private individual using the school facilities, that's cool. If it was a campus student group, great. But as a school sponsored, faculty directed activity, it, in my opinion, crosses the line. The doctirne of religious neutrality must extend to all religions and not just Christianity. To do otherwise would be to violate a basic tenant of the first admendment.

Christian Foundation???

One of the things which bothers me about the Christian right, but also to a lesser extent the Christian left as well, is the historical myth that the founding fathers set with a Bible in one hand and a quill pen in the other writing the constitution.

We hear it all the time. "This country was built on Christian prinicples." However, when you look at our form of government, it bears little resemblance to any type of Biblical government Old Testament or new.

God's plan for Isreal was a sort of theocratic socialism. The prophet would be in charge as a "Judge" over Isreal and receive instructions from God for the big issues. Otherwise, they would follow a code of laws which were quite interesting in light of America's preoccupation with capitalism. Now, I'm not opposed to capitalism, per se. We have benefitted as a nation from it, but we must not enshrine it as essentially Biblical. There was a type of free enterprise in the sense of individuals such as farmers and craftspeople selling their own goods, but the foundation of capitalism is loaning money at interest which was forbidden under the Law.

One of the most interesting elements of the law had to do with land ownership. Here's what Leviticus has to say about it:


And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
(Lev 25:10)

As you read further, you find out that every 50 years all of the land which had been sold to other people was redistributed to the original families so that no one could build up a monopoly on wealth because in those days wealth was measured in land and cattle and the produce of the land.

Also, they were not allowed to sell the land at whatever they could get for it. The price was fixed based on the produce of the land for the years the owner held it. They were not allowed to "charge what the market would bear." Such profiteering which is the American way of life in business was forbidden.

Since Isreal is not free in the New Testament, we must look at the organization of the church community for hints as to Government. In this case we see a type of communal living at the beginning. The church shared their funds with each other so that all could share in the prosperity of others. Of course, this was necessary considering the persecution of the times. There was a rude democracy at work, but it was direct democracy in the sense of coming to a consensus on issues rather than voting on them and taking the 51 percent solution.

So, where did our form of government come from? Well, most of the models had their roots in Greece and Rome. The original form of government in the U.S. was a type of elected oligarchy. The franchise was limited to males and landowners. With the exception of local offices and the house of representatives, Senators and Presidents were elected by the electoral college. The electors were not bound by law to vote for their candidate either, although they usually would.

The Roman senate was composed of the heads of ancient families for the most part and the Procounsuls were elected by popular vote of a limited citizenry as well. In the period before the emperors this provided a type of representative form of Government which was later refined into the Parliaments of Europe and eventually that of the U.S.

Likewise, our legal system has its roots in Roman Law. The Justinian Code laid the groundwork for legal codes throughout the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. Those codes were the models upon which our legal system is built. The Romans were the first to set forth the principle of presumption of innocence which is the hallmark of western Juris Prudence. The Justinian Code more than the 10 Commandments laid the foundation of our laws. Indeed, only the laws concerning theft, murder, and perjury are based on Mosaic law and those are shared by nearly all legal systems.

So, does this mean that our system is bad? No, not at all. What it does mean is that we cannot turn American History into some sort of apologetic for tearing down the wall of separation between church and state. Contrary to the assumptions of some, the founding fathers did not consider themselves to be setting up a "Christian" nation, even though most of them would consider themselves Christian (even though probably not by the standards of modern day evangelicals or the early church). They were driven more by classical ideals and the French enlightenment. The produced a good system. Would God's system be better? Probably, but I fear you need God to run it, since I don't think we have very many humans capable of doing so equitably.