Tag: Politics

Suspension Rescinded for Fort Worth Student for Comments Opposing Homosexuality

~ Evan Lenow

When you hear some stories, you immediately think, “I know where that happened.” So when such things happen in places outside the norm, we tend to get a little shocked. This week a high school freshman was suspended for making a comment that he was a Christian and he believed being homosexual was wrong. I immediately assumed that the situation occurred in California or New York, but much to my surprise it happened right here in Cowtown—Fort Worth, Texas.

According to news reports, the student at Western Hills High School on the west side of Fort Worth was in German class when the discussion of religion and homosexuality in Germany arose. He turned to a friend in the class and said, “I’m a Christian and I believe being gay is wrong.” The teacher heard his comment, wrote an infraction, and sent him to the assistant principal’s office where he received a three-day suspension.

The next day, his mother arrived with an attorney to discuss the matter with the principal. Thankfully, the principal rescinded the suspension and removed it from the student’s record, allowing him back into class with no further repercussions.

Even in a world of political correctness where teachers are all but required to be non-religious, this situation still seems a little strange. Reports suggest that the teacher has regularly introduced the topics of religion and homosexuality in the classroom:

[Attorney Matt] Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions. “There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.” Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.” “He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now,” Krause said.

These actions raise a very interesting question for public schools. Should a student’s cultural views—influenced by his religious beliefs—be stifled while a teacher is allowed to promote his beliefs about a controversial subject? The school system will face a very difficult decision about whether or not to become completely non-religious, non-controversial, non-cultural or to allow for some expression of differing viewpoints without the threat of punishment.

The implications of the latter—which seem to be in line with the spirit of the First Amendment—could be a two-edged sword. On one hand, we would applaud the ability of the student to express his belief in a sincere and respectful way. On the other hand, it would also seem to allow for the teacher at least to express his support of homosexuality. Now I certainly do not believe that the teacher should be allowed to push a homosexual agenda in class (especially a German class), but I do believe that students should be allowed to articulate alternatives to his view without fear of punishment or retaliation.

I can see some limited application of this discussion in a German class. Having studied four languages other than English, I recognize that there are some cultural aspects of learning a language. Most language teachers want their students to have an understanding of the culture behind the language, so I can see where discussion of religion could find its way into a German classroom. Let’s face it, one of the most central figures of Protestantism was German—Martin Luther. His translation of the Bible to German is still influential today. A balanced discussion of historical and contemporary religious issues in Germany could be fruitful for students learning the language. The problem with this teacher’s presentation is that it was not balanced. He pushed an agenda and punished a student who disagreed.

Of course there are limits to such discussions in the classroom, and an understanding of the maturity level of the students is necessary for having such discussions. It would never be appropriate for a public school teacher to have such a discussion with a third grade class; however, high school may be a different story. You may protest and say, “I don’t want my ninth grader exposed to such conversations in class!” I would counter with the realization that such conversations are already taking place in the hallways and locker rooms, so the controlled environment of the classroom may be better. In addition, as parents we need to prepare our children to articulate their positions effectively even when it is in opposition to a teacher’s position. At least while they are in high school, we have the opportunity to help them formulate their positions and support them in such discussions in class. When they move away to go to college and these same conversations arise, it may be too late.

So what do we take away from this? Let’s answer a couple of questions. Was the teacher wrong in punishing the student? Yes. He punished a student for disagreeing with his personal position. The student’s belief does not prevent him from learning German. The teacher was simply wrong. Outrage over the suspension is indeed appropriate, and the teacher should probably face disciplinary action for the way he handled the situation.

Should these discussions take place in school? To a certain degree, I say yes. Within a controlled environment where the students and teachers are mature enough to handle the discussion, it could be useful. To prevent such conversations would also prevent discussion of creation and intelligent design that many believers are fighting to get back into the classroom. Since those positions are often labeled “religious,” I am not willing to block all “religious” discussions in the classroom.

Should these conversations be taking place somewhere else? This is the most important question. Yes, they should happen in the home and church. We should not shy away from such topics at the dinner table. We need to tell our children what the Bible says about these things and prepare them to express their beliefs in a hostile environment. Don’t wait for the topic to come up in school—prepare for them in advance.

In 1 Peter 3:15, Peter instructs his readers, “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” Let’s be prepared to give a defense for what we believe and direct them back to the hope we have in Christ.

_________________________

Lari Barager, “Student Suspended for Saying Gay Is Wrong,” Fox 4 News, September 21, 2011.

Todd Starnes, “Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality,” FoxNews.com, September 22, 2011.

Eva-Marie Ayala, “Western Hills student suspended for denouncing homosexuality has punishment reversed,” Star-Telegram, September 22, 2011.

For audio from a recent conference where I addressed some of the issues related to homosexuality, see Southwestern’s Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Conference audio.

Speaking “Christianese”

~ Evan Lenow

There is an interesting post at CNN’s Belief Blog about a phenomenon in American Christianity. The author, John Blake, addresses the ability of Americans to speak a second language of Christian lingo. Blake writes:

Many Americans are bilingual. They speak a secular language of sports talk, celebrity gossip and current events. But mention religion and some become armchair preachers who pepper their conversations with popular Christian words and trendy theological phrases.

He notes several interesting characteristics of this “Christianese,” including its use by politicians (especially George W. Bush) to signal subtly to evangelicals that they are one of them.

Part of the article is also devoted to exposing inaccuracies in commonly used terms and phrases.  Blake (and Marcus Borg in his book Speaking Christian) argue that Christians regularly misuse terms such as salvation, born again, and rapture. Citing Borg’s book, Blake notes:

“Speaking Christian is an umbrella term for not only knowing the words, but understanding them,” Borg says. “It’s knowing the basic vocabulary, knowing the basic stories.” When Christians forget what their words mean, they forget what their faith means, Borg says.

I don’t agree with all of the theological assumptions that Blake (and Borg) make in this article, but it is certainly an interesting take on religious life in America. I think they are correct to note that we often talk in code and assume that everyone else knows what we are saying. For that reason, it is essential that we define our terms and not take for granted that everyone knows what we mean. We live in a society today with little or no “Christian memory.” Churches in the southern US, especially, have typically approached the world with the assumption that everyone has a church background. That is no longer true in our culture. We need to speak clearly, define our terms, and proclaim the message of Christ with conviction and compassion.

Poll Measures God’s Approval Rating

~ Evan Lenow

I am a self-confessed talk radio junkie. I listen to talk radio 95% of the time I am in the car. My oldest daughter has even asked my wife why daddy always listens to people talking on the radio instead of music. I prefer local talk radio shows over the nationally-syndicated types, and I am an equal-opportunity listener to both news/politics and sports talk radio. Typically on my drive in to work each day, I listen to a local DFW talk radio show, and I get my fill of news, politics, and job approval ratings. By the time I read something online or in the paper, I’ve already heard about it on the radio. However, I came across something new yesterday that I had never seen—God’s job approval rating.

Yes, the North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling conducted a poll[1] to measure, among other things, God’s approval rating. Some of the questions included, “If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its performance? If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of natural disasters? If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of animals? If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of creating the universe?”

What makes this poll even more interesting is that it was conducted as part of a national congressional poll. Therefore, we are able to see how God stacks up against leaders in the national government. God’s overall job approval was 52% approve, 9% disapprove (40% not sure). Compared to John Boehner (33% approve, 37% disapprove), Congressional Democrats (33% approve, 54% disapprove), and Congressional Republicans (33% approve, 55% disapprove), God fared pretty well in the poll. God’s highest rating came with a 71% approval of his handling of creating the universe. He even got a 50% approval rating (13% disapprove and 37% unsure) on natural disasters. In what is perhaps the most ridiculous statement of the entire poll, the authors of the polling results state, “Though not the most popular figure PPP has polled, if God exists, voters are prepared to give it good marks.”

It makes you wonder what possessed Public Policy Polling to include questions about God in its congressional poll. It is certainly interesting that God performed much better than our government officials (and Rupert Murdoch, who was also included in the poll), but what does a poll like this tell us?

First, we have to understand that God is not up for re-election. As Creator of the universe, God exercises sovereign rule over all aspects of creation (land, sea, animals, mankind, and the affairs of man). In Isaiah 40:21–26, the prophet writes:

Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, who makes the judges of the earth meaningless. Scarcely have they been planted, scarcely have they been sown, scarcely has their stock taken root in the earth, but He merely blows on them, and they wither, and the storm carries them away like stubble. “To whom then will you liken Me that I would be his equal?” says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these stars, the One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, not one of them is missing.

God is firmly in place as ruler of the universe. Though we may think he is absent at times, he is not. Though we may think he is silent at times, he still speaks. One of my favorite book titles (and favorite books) is Francis Scaheffer’s He Is There and He Is Not Silent. This is so true about God no matter what some polling firm states. Our failure to recognize God at work is not his fault—it is ours.

Second, we have to recognize that it is not our place to judge God. Who are we to approve or disapprove of God’s job performance? Job learned this lesson the hard way when God confronted him. In Job 38:1–11, we read:

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, and I will ask you, and you instruct Me! Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who enclosed the sea with doors when, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and I placed boundaries on it and set a bolt and doors, and I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther; and here shall your proud waves stop’?”

After God continued to question Job, we see Job’s humble response to God in Job 42:2–6,

I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ‘Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.’ I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You; therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes.

Just like Job, we have no standing to judge God or give our approval (or disapproval) to his job performance. God’s ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isa 55:9). When we declare that we know how God could have done something better, or we give our disapproval of his performance, we naïvely declare that we know more than God. What an act of hubris!

Consider these things before answering the phone for a political poll (which for some reason call our house on a regular basis). We do not judge God because he is perfect and we are far from it. So what are we to think about this poll? I believe Dino Grandoni from the Atlantic Wire said it best when he wrote, “Believers or not, it seems ridiculous for the public to categorically grade God like this, until you realize that it’s pollsters who asked the questions in the first place.”[2]

[1] Public Policy Polling, “Americans’ perception of Congress improves, but still poor.” July 21, 2011. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_721.pdf.

[2] Dino Grandoni, “Only 52% of Americans Approve of God’s Job Performance,” The Atlantic Wire, July 21, 2011. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/only-half-americans-approve-gods-job-performance/40268/.

Robert George on Marriage

~ Evan Lenow

The New York legislature recently passed a law redefining the meaning of marriage in order to allow for “same-sex marriages” in the state. Robert George was interviewed by the National Review about the recent legislation. Here are a few excerpts.

The vote in New York to redefine marriage advances the cause of loosening norms of sexual ethics, and promoting as innocent — and even “liberating” — forms of sexual conduct that were traditionally regarded in the West and many other places as beneath the dignity of human beings as free and rational creatures.

Once one buys into the ideology of sexual liberalism, the reality that has traditionally been denominated as “marriage” loses all intelligibility. That is true whether one regards oneself politically as a liberal or a conservative. For people who have absorbed the central premises of sexual liberation (whether formally and explicitly, as liberals tend to do, or merely implicitly as those conservatives who have gone in for it tend to do), marriage simply cannot function as the central principle or standard of rectitude in sexual conduct, as it has in Western philosophy, theology, and law for centuries.

The institution of marriage has already been deeply wounded by divorce at nearly plague levels, widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation, and other damaging factors. To redefine it out of existence in law is to make it much more difficult to restore a sound understanding of marriage on which a healthy marriage culture can be rebuilt for the good of all. It is to sacrifice the needs of the poor, who are hurt the most when a sound public understanding of marriage and sexual morality collapses. It is to give up on the truth that children need both a father and mother, and benefit from the security of their love for each other.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He has written and lectured extensively on various ethical issues, including marriage. He generally approaches issues from a Catholic natural law perspective. I am always intrigued to read what he has to say on cultural issues because he is a good thinker and very clear. I don’t always agree with him, but I agree way more often than I disagree.

You can read the full interview here.

On the Death of a Terrorist

~ Evan Lenow ~ 5 Comments

On the evening of May 1, 2011, the President of the United States announced the death of one of the world’s most infamous terrorists, Osama bin Laden. Almost immediately after President Obama’s official announcement, spontaneous celebrations broke out in front of the White House, at Ground Zero, and around the country. News of such celebrations left me a little hollow. I certainly want to rejoice that the face of terrorism is no longer able to devise wicked schemes for destroying other lives, but I am also saddened by the fact that a soul now has found his eternal destiny separated from God.

On the news this morning, I watched an interview with the mother of one of the victims on United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers rushed the cockpit. She had a balanced view concerning Bin Laden’s death. She said it was a bittersweet moment because justice had been served but it also served as a reminder of the tragedies of that day nearly ten years ago.

Twitter also lit up with news and reaction about Bin Laden’s death. Most of the tweets related joy, happiness, and satisfaction in the terrorist’s death. Some noted congratulatory sentiments to Presidents Obama and Bush. Others cheered the efforts of the Navy SEALS who carried out the plan to attack Bin Laden’s compound.

Finally, the crowd at the nationally-televised baseball game between the New York Mets and the Philadelphia Phillies began chants of “U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A” as the news of the announcement spread via social media, text messages, and emails.

So, what is the proper biblical reaction to the death of a terrorist? How should we feel? Should we join the crowds and rejoice in the streets? Should we cry over a soul eternally condemned to hell? Should we feel justified in a country that diligently pursued a perpetrator and administered justice? I want to provide three thoughts for consideration as we reflect upon the death of a terrorist.

First, we can know that justice was administered by a properly established authority. There is no doubt that President George W. Bush struggled with the decision to wage a “War on Terror” after the devastation of September 11, 2001. Just as Presidents before him had carried the burden of placing the lives of their military in harm’s way to enact justice, President Bush had to bear such a burden. No one probably thought that such a war would continue for ten years before the mastermind of the attacks was captured or killed, but that is what happened. In my recent readings on just war theory, I was reminded of one of the first principles of jus ad bellum (just principles for going to war). The principle of legitimate authority requires that war be waged only by those that have the legitimate authority to do so. Historically, this has been interpreted to mean sovereign governments over nation states. Thus, the United States of America in her sovereign authority waged war in order to administer justice for evils perpetrated against her people.

In Romans 13:1-4. Paul describes the role of the government in administering justice. He writes:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Note the final line of the quotation (v. 4). The governing authority “is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” From a biblical standpoint, we can rest assured that the American government has fulfilled its God-given duty in bringing wrath on one who practices evil.

Second, we can lament that a life has been taken. But you may protest, “Bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of thousands, why should we lament the death of such a wicked man?” We lament because that is what God does. In Ezekiel 33:11, God tells Ezekiel, “‘As I live!’ declares the Lord GOD, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways!’” God does not rejoice when life is taken, especially when those who have no concern for the truth of God are killed. Even when we see God taking the lives of those who have turned from him (e.g., Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:1-7), we do not see rejoicing from God. It is solemn and terrifying that life is squelched for the sake of justice.

The more disheartening thing about it is the warranted assumption that Bin Laden’s eternal destiny in hell has been sealed. Of course, we do not know his heart nor the possibility of a last minute conversion to faith in Christ; however, it seems safe to assume that Bin Laden never placed his faith in Christ as his personal Savior. His actions did not give evidence of a life that has been surrendered to God. In 1 John, the apostle gives us a few thoughts concerning our actions that give evidence to our spiritual lives. In 1 John 1:6, we see, “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” In 1 John 2:11, the apostle tells us, “But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.” Finally, in 1 John 5:12, we read, “He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.” Based on Bin Laden’s actions and his murderous background, we have warrant to assume that his life was characterized by darkness rather than the light of a relationship with Christ. Thus, his eternal destiny would be separation from God in hell.

Finally, we should use this occasion as an opportunity to remember that sin has a drastic impact on our world. From the days of Genesis 3 onward, we have battled the effects of sin on a personal and global level. It is easy to point a finger at Bin Laden and say, “He was evil!” It is much harder to point a finger at ourselves and say, “I am evil!” However, that is exactly what the Bible tells us about ourselves. In Romans 3:9-12, we read:

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, ‘There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.’

Thankfully, that is not the end of the story. Christ sacrificed his own life for us and paid the penalty for our sin. As we see later in Romans 10:9-13, Paul states:

If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;  for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for ‘Whoever will call on the name of the lord will be saved.’

Though sin has brought evil and death to us and our world, Christ has overcome evil through his death, burial, and resurrection. May the people of the world see the death of a terrorist and be reminded of their own impending deaths. As a result, I pray that they would turn to Christ with childlike faith and trust in him for their eternal destiny.