Menu

74 Sermon Illustrations on Injustice

74 illustrations Page 2 of 2

Injustice in Christian preaching highlights the pain and moral wrongness of unfair treatment and oppression, calling believers to reflect God's justice and mercy (Isaiah 1:17). Illustrations often use images of unfair scales, wrongful imprisonment, and the courage to confront evil without compromising truth, emphasizing both the reality of injustice and the call to respond with forgiveness and righteousness (Psalm 82:3).

Against the Spirit of the Age: Justice and the Central Park Five

Job 4:7

Some crimes perfectly capture the spirit of their age. Case in point: the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy in the spring of 1968, which epitomized the tumultuous 1960s.

Another such crime is the 1989 rape and beating of Trisha Meili, better known as the “Central Park Jogger.” The brutal attack at the hands of five young men introduced Americans to the word “wilding,” which summed up our fear of violent crime and the feral youth that committed it. It became a potent reminder of our need to “get tough” on crime and those who committed it.

The problem is that almost everything we thought we knew about the case was wrong.

The last most Americans heard about the case, five young men, all of them African-American or Hispanic, were arrested and charged with the attack. Four of them confessed and implicated the fifth one. They were convicted on the basis of their confessions and sentenced to long prison terms.

End of story.

Except it wasn’t the end of the story. What you probably don’t know is that twelve years later, another man confessed to the crime. And unlike the “Central Park Five,” none of whose DNA was found at the crime, his DNA was found. In fact, his DNA was the only DNA, apart from the victim’s, found at the crime scene.

You also probably don’t know that, based on this evidence, Robert Morgenthau, the Manhattan District Attorney, moved to have the convictions vacated. He reasoned that if the jury had heard this evidence, they would have doubted the validity of the confessions, which followed hours of questioning and were retracted days after they were made. New York Judge Charles L. Tejada agreed.

All of this is the subject of a Ken Burns film, “The Central Park Five,” based on the book of the same name by his daughter, Sarah. As Sarah Burns put it, the case “exposed the deepest fears of New Yorkers in the 1980s” and demonstrated “who and what we fear.”

Acting on that fear, there was a rush to judgment, especially in the media. As Poynter.org, which covers the media, said, the real “wolf pack” in the story was the New York media.

There was little if any discussion about “innocent until proven guilty.” Instead, there was the relentless pursuit of headlines and exclusives that reinforced the narrative of a city under siege by the feral “other.”

If innocent people were caught up in the rush to judgment, well, that was just the price of making people feel, if not safe, then avenged.

The problem is that whatever you might call this, it is not justice. And since, for the Christian, the right administration of justice is the government’s primary obligation, then we should be greatly concerned at this miscarriage of justice.

Chuck Colson understood this. While he recognized our fear of crime and the need for order, he also saw where that fear could take us. He knew that giving government a blank check to “get tough on crime” threatened all of our liberties, as well as risking injustice.

Pointing this out when everyone else was clamoring for blood was not the most popular position to take. It still isn’t. But as we’ve learned, the majority can be, and often are, wrong. And, besides, Christians are called to resist the spirit of their age.

________

Copyright (c) 2013 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Eric Metaxas via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database judgingprejudice

Turning the Other Cheek: the Jackie Robinson Story

Luke 9:54

The words are famous even among those who know little about baseball: “I’m looking for a ballplayer with guts enough not to fight back.” They were spoken by Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey to the man whom he’d chosen to break baseball’s color barrier: Jackie Robinson.

We see this famous scene in the film, “42,” a biopic about Robinson. “42” — named for the number Robinson wore on his uniform — is a fine and memorable film starring Chadwick Boseman as Robinson and Harrison Ford as the immortal Branch Rickey. But the film all but omits the most significant factor in Jackie Robinson’s ability to endure almost unbearable insults and physical attacks on the field: namely his strong Christian faith.

Branch Rickey wasn’t the first person to teach Robinson that keeping his temper was more powerful than letting it blow. As I note in my new book, “Seven Men and the Secret of Their Greatness,” while he was a student at Pasadena Junior College, “Jackie met a Methodist preacher named Karl Downs. Downs knew that Jackie was a Christian and taught him that exploding in anger was not the Christian answer to injustice. But he explained that a life truly dedicated to Christ was not submissive; on the contrary, it was heroic.... Downs eventually led Jackie to a deeper faith in Jesus Christ. He began to see that the path to justice would be done not with fists and fury but with love and restraint.”

As “42” opens, we see Jackie Robinson sitting in the office of Brooklyn Dodgers manager Branch Rickey hearing the incredible news that Rickey wants Jackie to play for the Dodgers. Then Rickey acts out the vicious varieties of bigotry Jackie will face from white hotel managers, restaurant waiters, and fellow ballplayers — insults he will have to face with dignity.

How much more dramatic this scene would have been had “42” told the whole story. Rickey knew that Robinson shared his devout Christian faith, and wanted to reinforce the spiritual dimensions of the battle into which the two men were about to step. So Rickey pulled out a copy of a book by Giovanni Papini, “Life of Christ.” He flipped to the passage in which Papini discusses the Sermon on the Mount. There he referred to Jesus’ call to “turn the other cheek” as “the most stupefying of [Jesus’s] revolutionary teachings.”

Rickey’s faith told him that injustice had to be fought wherever it was found. As for Jackie Robinson, he believed that God had chosen him for this noble purpose. And he knew that if he committed himself to doing this great thing, God would give him the strength he needed to see it through.

Day after day, Jackie Robinson’s faith fueled his ability to play great baseball. And night after night, he got down on his knees, asking God for strength in the face of unrelenting hatred.

The reason I include Jackie Robinson in a book about some of the greatest men who ever lived is not because he played great baseball, but because he engaged in a heroic sacrifice. While he didn’t have to, Jackie Robinson followed Jesus and sacrificed his right to fight back.

Jackie Robinson changed America for the better. He did it by living out, on and off the baseball field, the revolutionary words of Jesus: Turn the other cheek.

________

Copyright (c) 2013 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

======================

Another commentary by Terry Mattingly: "‘42’ glosses over truth of Jackie Robinson’s devout faith," April 26, 2013.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/apr/26/terry-mattingly-42-glosses-over-truth-of-jackie/

Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey knew that the first black player in Major League Baseball was going to go through hell.

That’s why the cigar-chomping, Bible-thumping Rickey set out to find a man who would keep believing — when facing scathing racial hatred — that the powers of heaven were on his side. As baseball writers often have noted, Rickey needed someone who could turn the other cheek — as well as a double play.

In writer-director Brian Helgeland’s new movie, “42,” Jackie Robinson states the challenge in blunt terms.

“You want a man,” Robinson asks, “who doesn’t have the guts to fight back?”

“I want a man who has the guts NOT to fight back,” Rickey says.

The fit was perfect. In Helgeland’s script, Rickey offers this churchy equation: “Robinson’s a Methodist. I’m a Methodist. God’s a Methodist. We can’t go wrong.”

That’s the stuff of movies, alright, but this kind of faith reference remains somewhat unusual in a Hollywood blockbuster, said Eric Metaxas, best known for writing the best-selling “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy.”

The problem, he said, is that “42” omitted many details that would demonstrate that faith was crucial to the whole story.

There’s no doubt Robinson was a remarkable man, Metaxas argues in his new “Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness.” But Robinson also was a remarkably courageous and devout Christian.

Thus, he included Robinson’s story in a book that explores the faith commitments of George Washington, William Wilberforce, Eric Liddell, Pope John Paul II, Chuck Colson and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

In the classic “Chariots of Fire,” which won the Oscar for Best Picture, the Olympic runner and future missionary Liddell is shown preaching and discussing the beliefs that led to his pivotal decision not to run in Sunday races at the 1924 Olympics in Paris.

“Try to imagine that movie without those scenes,” Metaxas said in a telephone interview.

The key “42” scene — when Robinson meets Rickey on Aug. 28, 1945 — could have depicted what actually happened at the time: Rickey pulled out a copy of a classic devotional work, “Life of Christ” by Giovanni Papini, and read aloud the passage in which the author discusses the Sermon on the Mount, including the reference that describes the “turn the other cheek” challenge as “the most stupefying” of the teachings of Jesus.

It wouldn’t have taken long to read the Scripture that so inspired Rickey and Robinson, Metaxas said. The Gospel of St. Matthew states:

“Ye have heard it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

The reason, quite literally, Rickey “chose Jackie Robinson was his strong moral character and his Christian faith,” Metaxas said.

“There were other great black players out there. But could they have taken the stand that Jackie took? ...

“That first meeting is the moment. That scene is the heart of this story and Jesus is right there in the middle of it.”

But movies are movies, and what often matters most are the visual images.

Thus, it’s crucial Helgeland didn’t include scenes in which Robinson is shown doing what he repeatedly said he did day after day in those tense early years in baseball — getting down on his knees to pray.

“I’m not saying that this is a horrible movie,” Metaxas said.

“Yes, Robinson is shown closing his eyes for 0.87 seconds before he runs out onto the field, and he’s hit by the occasional inspirational ray of sunlight. ... But why are people afraid of showing a true American hero getting down on his knees and praying? What’s so scary about that?

“It’s like people think that prayer is a sign of weakness. Well, getting down on his knees didn’t make Jackie Robinson weak.

“That’s what helped make him strong.”

________

© 2013 Knoxville News Sentinel.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s Preaching

Amos 5:24

This week the nation marks 50 years since the 1963 March on Washington. The most famous moment of that historic event is, of course, the speech by Martin Luther King Jr., now one of the most iconic speeches in American history. The refrain of that speech is one that is so embedded in the American memory that most people know the speech simply as the “I have a dream” speech. There are some things about that speech that likely could inform Christian preaching today.

The primary lesson we need to learn from this speech is the way it spoke to the conscience. Part of the gravity of this speech came from its location, before the monument to the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln. Part of the gravity came from the surroundings, a mighty throng of men, women and children gathered in the nation’s capital to ask for the cashing of that metaphorical “check” of equality guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence.

But a great deal of the power behind this speech came from the way King was pressing a claim onto the consciences of those who heard his voice.

He started with a contrast between the promised end to the injustice of slavery and the ongoing injustice of Jim Crow. This contrast is similar in content, though different somewhat in rhetoric, to King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. Against the so-called “white moderates” who counseled “patience,” King pointed out “an appalling condition” -- that Americans were still, in large numbers, exiles in their own land. With such injustice, there was no room for the “tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”

What was King doing here? He was doing precisely what the Old Testament prophets did with Israel and Judah, pointing out sin and judgment, warning implicitly of the justice of God.

We often hear caricatures of evangelical “hellfire and brimstone” preaching. But I don’t think I’ve heard a hellfire and brimstone sermon in years. Most evangelical churches breezily converse about sin in terms of consequences to be avoided. In fact, most of the preaching I hear on sin and judgment sounds an awful lot like my dentist telling me I should really floss more. I feel guilty and I know he’s right, but it hardly feels like a transcendent word -- because it isn’t.

King’s words, though, intentionally were resonant with the cadence of the King James Bible because he was speaking a word of judgment to a Bible Belt who knew that Bible. He wanted to confront consciences with what they said they believed. Whatever King’s personal doctrinal commitments were or weren’t, he didn’t preach Fosdick, Tillich or Niebuhr. He preached Jefferson and Madison and Lincoln to Americans, and he preached Amos and Isaiah and Jesus to Christians. And when the regenerate conscience is confronted with Jesus, remember what the Shepherd of Galilee said, “My sheep hear my voice....”

But King didn’t simply preach judgment. After all, Malcolm X could preach judgment, and did early in his activism, in harshly nationalist Islamic terms. King knew that his argument wouldn’t resonate with Christian consciences unless it appealed to the Christ-haunted imagination. That’s why he spoke of a dream.

What King did was to enable his hearers to imagine what it would be like if the appalling condition were reversed -- if freedom were to ring “from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.” He also didn’t picture this future as simply liberation for African Americans. He recognized that hatred is a heavy burden on the heart and the conscience. Those singing “Free at last!” aren’t just black men and women, but all people. His future is one in which “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.”

Where did King learn to speak with fiery denunciation and with welcoming invitation in the same speech? Well, I would suggest he learned it in church pews, listening to the preaching of the Gospel. He saw there a vision that doesn’t leave sin undisturbed. Jesus, as with the prophets before Him and the apostles after, consistently called out sin, and not merely in generic abstract terms but in all the ways sinners creatively find to consider our sins acceptable. Jesus often stops people who want to follow Him by pointing out that He isn’t sure they understood how His Gospel contradicts their lives.

But in the Bible, Gospel preaching never left off with condemnation. Jesus presents a Kingdom that He pictures consistently as including those who would never feel themselves welcomed. He asks us to picture what it would be like to join His little flock of future galactic servant-rulers. He asks us to imagine what, left to ourselves, we would never imagine, that the Gospel is really good news for us. It’s meant to leave us with the sort of shock that I remember from an old gospel song we used to sing in my boyhood church, “Whosoever surely meaneth me!”

I wonder how much weightier our preaching would be if we remembered to thunder God’s justice while always following with God’s welcome, through the proclamation of a God who in the crucified Christ is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:26).

As we remember 50 years of that monumental March on Washington, let’s remind ourselves of how far we have to go as Americans to see the promise of racial justice realized. Let’s remember how far we have to go as Christians to see Gospel unity in our own congregations. But let’s also think about the fact that there’s a reason this speech is still on our minds after 50 years, and maybe we could learn something in our Gospel preaching about what it takes to address both the conscience and the imagination.

Most of us will never address thousands of people before a statue of Lincoln. But many of us will stand in front of our small gatherings, before an unseen multitude of angels and the great cloud of witnesses. Let’s preach to the conscience. Let’s preach to the imagination. Let’s preach the bad news with thunder and the good news with laughter. Let’s identify where we’re trying to hide from God’s judgment and where we’re trying to hide from His invitation.

Let’s be hellfire-and-Kingdom preachers who know how both to warn and to welcome, how both to weep and to dream.

We Refuse To Be Enemies

Job 14:7

A Palestinian Christian family that preaches non-violence from a farm in the West Bank is battling to hold on to land it has owned for 98 years. Now surrounded by Israeli settlements, the family is a living example of the idea of peaceful resistance.

On his farm outside Bethlehem, Daher Nassar is picking apples from the ruins of the orchard he planted at least eight years ago. The fruit is scattered across ground freshly opened and imprinted with the tracks of a bulldozer. At the field’s edge, branches reach out from inside a mound of earth, the bark stripped and mangled, unripe almonds still clinging to the trees.

On May 19, 2014, a Palestinian shepherd from the village of Nahalin was out at first light and saw the bulldozer at work in the field, guarded by Israeli soldiers. By the time Nassar arrived the whole orchard - the best part of a decade’s work - was gone. His English is far from fluent, but there’s no mistaking the pain in his voice: “Why you broke the trees?”

A spokesperson for the Israeli military authorities in the West Bank said the trees were planted illegally on state land.

Nassar’s sister, Amal, has a different explanation. The government, together with the Israeli settlers who live around the farm, is “trying to push us to violence or push us to leave,” she says. Amal insists that her family will not move from the land, nor will they abandon their commitment to peaceful resistance.

“Nobody can force us to hate,” she says. “We refuse to be enemies.”

That phrase, which is painted on a stone at the entrance to the farm, was first used by her father, Bishara Nassar. Long before the concept became widely known among Palestinians, he taught his children a theory of non-violence that was rooted in his own Christian beliefs.

Bishara (“Gospel”) Nassar was a child when his father bought this land in 1916. Even at that time, as World War One transformed the Middle East and the Ottoman Empire limped to an end, Palestinian Christians were beginning to emigrate. After the war of 1948 the Christian exodus from the West Bank quickened, and Bishara, who was a gifted preacher and accordionist, began to travel round the nearby villages, singing songs and leading Bible study in family homes. Music and stories, he thought, might deepen the faith and lift the spirits of Bethlehem’s Christian children, encouraging them to stay.

Bishara also came to believe that the Christian community had a special role to play in building a more peaceful future.

“My father always said, ‘We will never achieve peace in Palestine and Israel just by shaking hands - we need to work on people, to start with the grassroots’,” says Amal Nassar. “So what we do now, as a family, is fulfilling the dream of my father that people can build bridges, for hope, for understanding, reconciliation, dialogue, to achieve peace. This is the idea.”

Guided by that vision, she and her brothers have transformed the farm into a centre for peace-building and non-violent resistance called the Tent of Nations.

For more than 20 years they have held workshops here, welcoming Israeli students, rabbis, and peace activists, as well as groups from across Europe and America. They run summer camps for local schools, teaching Palestinian children about non-violence and encouraging them to develop a love for the land by working and playing on the farm. This is especially important, says Amal Nassar, for a generation that has grown up in the refugee camps and urban sprawl behind Israel’s separation barrier. She also trains Palestinian women in non-violence, while her mother - Bishara’s widow, Milada - cooks traditional food for the day’s guests.

Milada Nassar says her husband would have been proud of what his children have created. But in the years since his death in 1976, the family’s commitment to non-violence has been tested in ways he could never have imagined.

At that time the West Bank had been under Israeli military rule for almost a decade, and Jewish settlers were just beginning to move into the area south of the farm. For the most part, though, the hills around Bishara’s land were still open countryside, farmed by Palestinian families or used as grazing by shepherds. In the 40 years since, Israeli settlements have been built on every one .

There are five settlements in total, the nearest so close that the settlers’ voices carry across the valley to the farm. The most recent, Netiv Ha’avot, is little more than a strip of houses encircled by coils of razor wire and festooned with Israeli flags. The largest, Beitar Illit, is a town of more than 40,000 people, a blaze of lights on the hillside at night. All of them are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

As they watched the settlements rise around them in the 1980s, the Nassars began to worry. Their farm was in a prime location, close to the main north-south road through the West Bank and on high ground.

In 1991 their fears were confirmed. The military authorities declared that more than 90% of the farm now belonged to the State of Israel. Gush Etzion, one of the biggest settlement blocks in the West Bank, looked set to expand on to the Nassar farm.

The Nassars, though, refused to leave, or to see the land divided. And virtually alone among Palestinian farmers, they had the documents they needed to launch an appeal in the Israeli courts.

In 1924, realising that the Ottoman Empire was finished and worried by rising tensions between Arabs and Jews, Bishara Nassar’s father had registered his property with Palestine’s new imperial rulers. The British issued land deeds that specified the size and borders of the farm, and Bishara’s father, who was a literate man, held on to the documents. Almost 70 years later, those papers would form the basis of a legal case that has been in front of the Israeli courts for 23 years. It remains unresolved.

“They know very well that the Palestinians cannot afford to defend the land,” says Amal Nassar, “so they give up hope and leave.” But the family has somehow found the money and determination to keep their appeal alive.

When they were informed, after 10 years in the military courts, that their Palestinian lawyer was not eligible to contest the case in Israel’s supreme court - because he carried West Bank identity papers - they found an Israeli firm willing to take it on. When they were told to provide a land survey, they hired (at a cost of $70,000) an Israeli surveyor, and sent him to consult maps and documents in the imperial archives of London and Istanbul. When they were asked to bring witnesses in support of their claim to have farmed the land for three generations, they hired a bus to take more than 30 Palestinian villagers to the military court near Ramallah. “We had to wait five hours outside the court under the sun,” remembers Amal Nassar. “And then, after five hours, a soldier come out, they say, ‘We don’t want witnesses, go home.’

“Every time they see you are ready to meet their demands, they ask [for something] more and more difficult, [so] that you say ‘I am fed up, I cannot.’ Yes, this [is] always the process. We know it. It’s a game to push us to leave.”

The way Amal sees it, the Israeli military and the settlers, having failed to evict the family by legal means, are now trying to force them out. She remembers the settlers who uprooted 250 young olive trees in 2002, and who permanently closed the road to the farm with rubble. The demolition orders posted on the gate, threatening to destroy the Nassars’ home and water wells. The soldiers who, in 2009, forced her 72-year-old mother out of bed at gunpoint in the middle of the night and made her wait in the cold while they searched the farm.

The Israeli authorities in the West Bank insist that by destroying the Nassars’ orchard and posting demolition orders on the Tent of Nations, they are simply enforcing planning regulations. “We are not intimidating the family,” said a spokesperson for CoGAT, the body responsible for implementing Israeli policy in the West Bank. “We are not doing any of those steps in order to make the family leave. We are enforcing the law.”

The Israeli military did not respond to the specific allegations made by the Nassars, but they, too, denied that the family is subject to a campaign of harassment: “The assertion that the IDF seeks to intimidate as a means of eviction is farcical, and an absolute contradiction of the reality on the ground in Judea and Samaria [West Bank]. The reality of Judea and Samaria, in which acts of Palestinian terrorism and extreme violence continue to rise, presents a complex security challenge. Nonetheless, the IDF remains committed to fulfilling its mission of safeguarding security and stability in the region, in a highly professional manner based on the morals and code of ethics that stand as a pillar of all IDF activities.”

Amal Nassar’s younger brother, Daoud, is not impressed by the moral code of the men who uprooted his orchard. But neither is he angry: “We are willing to build up a better future in a non-violent way ... without hatred,” he says. “Our response to this injustice will never be with violence, and we will never give up and leave.”

Palestinians have a word that captures this refusal to be provoked or demoralized: sumud. Sometimes translated as ‘steadfastness’, sumud describes the stubborn, patient determination to stay on the land and to carry on in spite of all the difficulties of living under military occupation.

It is a quality embodied by Daher Nassar, who, even as he walks across a scarred and empty field, is imagining the orchard he’ll harvest 10 years from now.

“I will plant more trees,” he says. “Double trees.”

=============

Version used in sermon by David Holwick on 12/14/2014:

This summer the BBC reported on a Palestinian Christian family which is battling Israel to hold onto its land. It is outside Bethlehem and they have owned it for 98 years. Israelis have built settlements all around it and recently they bulldozed one of their orchards, saying it was on illegal land. The government wants to seize 90% of their property.

Unlike most Palestinians, the Nassar family has a deed for the land, registered in 1924 with the British overlords. They hired a surveyor for $70,000 but it did no good. The Israelis always demand something else. The Nassars know the Israelis just want them to pack up and leave.

But they won’t go. And they won’t hate. In their words, “We refuse to be enemies.” Their response to injustice will never be violence.

They have hosted Jews, Muslims and Christians at their farm, all because of their devout father. “What we do now, as a family, is fulfilling the dream of [our] father that people can build bridges, for hope, for understanding, reconciliation, dialogue, to achieve peace. This is the idea.”

Just Because You Did It Doesn't Mean You're Guilty

Isaiah 5:22

The billboard shows a smiling lawyer with a polka dot bow-tie in front of a courthouse with an American flag flying in the background. Bold print proclaims, “Just Because You Did It Doesn’t Mean You’re Guilty”.

Really?

When I look at the message on attorney Larry L. Archie’s Greensboro, North Carolina, billboard, I have to wonder what was in the good lawyer’s mind. Is he making some deep philosophical point that I’m missing? Or does he mean exactly what his words seem to say?

The message of the billboard seems to be that whether or not you have committed a crime doesn’t really matter. The important thing is that a good lawyer (like Mr. Archie) can get you off. So, even if you did it, don’t worry about it. Let’s get together and work on making sure you’re never held accountable for what you did.

Can this really be what Larry Archie meant to communicate? I understand that the purpose of the ad is to drum up business, and Mr. Archie is a criminal defense attorney. And I understand that everyone deserves their day in court, with competent legal representation, whether they actually committed a crime or not.

But have we as a society really come to the place where we are ok with attorneys advertising to criminals that committing crimes isn’t a problem if you have a good lawyer to get you off?

Woe to men ... who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away justice from the righteous man!

Isaiah 5:22-23 (NKJV)

I’m guessing that nobody pointed out to Larry Archie the moral and ethical ramifications of his message before it was put up on a billboard for all the world to see. Of course, there’s the possibility that he wouldn’t be concerned about such things anyway, but I won’t make that assumption.

Instead, I hope that now that the billboard is up, Mr. Archie will see his message with different eyes, and that billboard won’t stay up. If it does, that will say a lot about Larry L. Archie as a person – and about us as a society.

________

One commenter suggested the billboard may not be as slimy as it appears - "Legally, someone could have done some misdeed but not be criminally liable. The best example is someone legally insane committing a homicide. There are other legal defenses such as duress that could be applicable." The blog author doubted this is what the lawyer's billboard was trying to convey.

Voodoo Makes You Feel Better

Luke 9:54

“We asked employees to recall a time when their supervisors abused them in the workplace,” says Lindie Liang of the School of Business and Economics at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. The point: to study what made people feel better after being treated unfairly by their boss.

To relieve their stress, the researchers had a study group of 229 people in Canada and the United States abuse voodoo dolls representing their bosses with pins, candles, or pliers, and then fill out a questionnaire to see if they felt better compared to a control group that didn’t abuse the dolls.

The results were published in The Leadership Quarterly, and “What we found, across several studies,” Liang says, is “people who had the opportunity to retaliate, to harm the voodoo doll that symbolized their boss, they actually showed restored justice perception.” In other words, he says, they felt they got revenge “without actually murdering their supervisor.”

*

[The original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #17268]

from This Is True internet newsletter · Randy Cassingham via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database injusticeretaliation

Indonesia’s Worst Police Scandal Involved Christians

Job 8:3

In 2022 the nation of Indonesian was transfixed by a murder trial involving a high-level police general. The murder case is considered the worst scandal in the history of the Indonesian police force and has deteriorated the public’s trust in the police. Dozens of police officers were involved in the cover-up and have since been dishonorably discharged.

Former police general Ferdy Sambo was sentenced to death for ordering and covering up the murder of his bodyguard, Brigadier Nofriansyah Yosua Hutabarat, who Sambo claims sexually assaulted his wife. Initially, Sambo claimed Hutabarat died in a shootout with the police general’s aide, Richard Eliezer, in his home. Yet Hutabarat’s family became suspicious after police attempted to stop them from viewing his body. Eliezer later admitted that he shot Hutabarat under direct orders from Sambo. Sambo then put a bullet into his bodyguard’s head, Eliezer said.

Complicating the matter, Sambo, Eliezer, and Hutabarat all happen to be Christians in the Muslim-majority country.

How should Christians rightly view the police and encourage accountability to combat abuse of power? Lotnatigor Sihombing, lecturer in ethics and leadership at Amanat Agung Theological Seminary in Jakarta, says the sin most often mentioned in the Bible is the violation of justice. Any sin is a violation of justice, be it distributive justice, vindictive justice, or legalist justice. Even in Ecclesiastes 3:16, it is written, “In the place of judgment — wickedness was there, in the place of justice — wickedness was there.” Therefore, Christian police officers, prosecutors, judges, and lawyers must truly fear God, the source of justice, and uphold justice. Likewise, Christians in any position should not become bribers and lawbreakers.

Jesuit priest Franz Magnis-Suseno says every human being is accountable for his or her actions, even those in leadership positions. We expect our leaders to be trustworthy, to put the common good before their interest, and to conscientiously obey the law. Leaders who break the law must be punished more harshly than ordinary citizens.

In the case of Eliezer, the aide who was ordered to kill Hutabarat, the obligation to obey orders ends when what is commanded is evil. This is one of the most fundamental moral norms that an evil command must never be obeyed. The Nazi slogan “Befehl ist Befehl (An order is an order)” was deeply immoral.

Yakub Tri Handoko, founder of the Indonesian Apologetics Movement (API) and Grace Alone Ministry (GRAMI), says every Christian should take any sin seriously. Love and forgiveness should never be used as an excuse to overlook misconduct. The gospel isn’t only about grace but also about the truth (John 1:14). Justice should be served. When a leader forces us to perform certain actions that contradict the moral law in our hearts or the teachings of the Bible, we have the right to disobey. The apostles taught us that we must be more obedient to God than to other people. Several faith heroes from the Old Testament also provide good examples, such as Daniel and his friends or the prophet Elijah. Risks and dangers are often inevitable for followers of Christ.

In the end, the truth of God’s Word from Acts 5:29 serves as a reminder that resonates loudly for us: “We must obey God rather than human beings!”

________

Original article was by Maria Fennita and Mellie Cynthia, with reporting assistance by Ivan K. Santoso. This version has been edited by Rev. David Holwick.

from Christianity Today · Maria Fennita and Mellie Cynthia, edited by Rev. David Holwick via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database corruptiontruthmurder

Life's Unfair, Then You Die

Psalms 49

Sermon in Ecclesiastes series. Injustice, Death. Eccl 3:16-5:17

===========================

LIFE'S UNFAIR, THEN YOU DIE

===========================

I. Something's not right.

A. A time for everything - but is life really cut-and-dried?

B. Solomon surveys life and finds that many things don't add up.

II. Power plays.

A. The tears of the oppressed. 4:1

B. Oppressors have all the power.

C. Money is oppressive. 5:10

III. Death - ultimate injustice?

A. We are animals. 3:19

B. Who knows where our spirit goes?

C. Best commentary is Psalm 49.

IV. Approaching our Redeemer God.

A. Be cautious in coming to God. 5:1

B. Be serious about your faith. 5:2

C. God hates superficial religion.

from Condensed sermon outline (handout) by Rev. David Holwick · Serm97d.pco via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database injustice

Forgiving Injustice: Getting Our Head Around Magnanimity

Job 4:7

Every now and again, I come across a news story that stops me dead in my tracks. Last week, I came across two such stories about mind-boggling injustice and mind-bending mercy.

The first story concerns Willie “Pete” Williams, an African-American man from Georgia. He served more than two decades in prison for crimes he never committed.

In 1985, Williams was accused of aggravated sodomy, kidnapping, and rape. Despite his claims of innocence, Williams was sentenced to forty-five years. For the next twenty-two years, he slept on hard bunks, ate prison hash, and could only wonder about the life he might have lived on the outside.

But Williams did not give up. In July 2005, he contacted the Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal clinic that reexamines criminal cases using post-conviction DNA evidence. After investigating Williams’s claims that he was wrongly convicted on faulty eyewitness evidence, the Innocence Project took his case back to court, and Williams was found innocent.

After singing a few lines of “Amazing Grace,” 44-year-old Williams walked out of prison a free man and went home to eat a steak dinner with his family. A few days later, he appeared at a news conference claiming he wasn’t angry about spending half of his life behind bars. Instead, he demonstrated mercy and forgiveness. “Anybody can screw up,” he said. “We’re all human.”

Would you or I have reacted to such horrific injustice with such grace? I pray we’ll never find out.

Williams attributes his remarkable ability to forgive to his conversion to Christ in prison. “That’s been my rock,” he said. Williams’s faith in Christ carried him through years of being labeled a sex offender and gave him hope that his innocence would one day come to light.

And guess what? Williams wasn’t the only innocent man exonerated last month. James Waller, a 50-year-old Dallas prisoner, who also lost half his life to prison and parole, was declared innocent — also by the Innocence Project — of a 1982 conviction of raping a boy. At the court ruling, Waller, like Williams, said he wasn’t angry “because the Lord has given me so much.”

One commentator on a liberal weblog admitted he was astounded when he read Waller’s story in the NEW YORK TIMES. “I tried to imagine having that kind of magnanimity,” the blogger wrote, “and I just couldn’t wrap my mind around it.”

Well, the only way we can wrap our minds around that kind of forgiveness is to receive that kind of forgiveness ourselves — which God offers us in Christ. It’s only then that we will know what Waller and Williams know: that revenge and bitterness, while they abound on earth, have no place in heaven.

In the end, I believe it’s the graciousness, the forgiveness, and the hope in men like James Waller and Willie Williams that acts as a signpost pointing even the most hardened skeptic to the reality of God’s love and forgiveness. These men are living examples of Peter’s admonition in 1 Peter 2:12 that we live such good lives among unbelievers that, “though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God ... “

There is no better evidence of the presence of Jesus in our world.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Forgiving Injustice: Getting Our Head Around Magnanimity

Job 4:7

Every now and again, I come across a news story that stops me dead in my tracks. Last week, I came across two such stories about mind-boggling injustice and mind-bending mercy.

The first story concerns Willie “Pete” Williams, an African-American man from Georgia. He served more than two decades in prison for crimes he never committed.

In 1985, Williams was accused of aggravated sodomy, kidnapping, and rape. Despite his claims of innocence, Williams was sentenced to forty-five years. For the next twenty-two years, he slept on hard bunks, ate prison hash, and could only wonder about the life he might have lived on the outside.

But Williams did not give up. In July 2005, he contacted the Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal clinic that reexamines criminal cases using post-conviction DNA evidence. After investigating Williams’s claims that he was wrongly convicted on faulty eyewitness evidence, the Innocence Project took his case back to court, and Williams was found innocent.

After singing a few lines of “Amazing Grace,” 44-year-old Williams walked out of prison a free man and went home to eat a steak dinner with his family. A few days later, he appeared at a news conference claiming he wasn’t angry about spending half of his life behind bars. Instead, he demonstrated mercy and forgiveness. “Anybody can screw up,” he said. “We’re all human.”

Would you or I have reacted to such horrific injustice with such grace? I pray we’ll never find out.

Williams attributes his remarkable ability to forgive to his conversion to Christ in prison. “That’s been my rock,” he said. Williams’s faith in Christ carried him through years of being labeled a sex offender and gave him hope that his innocence would one day come to light.

And guess what? Williams wasn’t the only innocent man exonerated last month. James Waller, a 50-year-old Dallas prisoner, who also lost half his life to prison and parole, was declared innocent — also by the Innocence Project — of a 1982 conviction of raping a boy. At the court ruling, Waller, like Williams, said he wasn’t angry “because the Lord has given me so much.”

One commentator on a liberal weblog admitted he was astounded when he read Waller’s story in the NEW YORK TIMES. “I tried to imagine having that kind of magnanimity,” the blogger wrote, “and I just couldn’t wrap my mind around it.”

Well, the only way we can wrap our minds around that kind of forgiveness is to receive that kind of forgiveness ourselves — which God offers us in Christ. It’s only then that we will know what Waller and Williams know: that revenge and bitterness, while they abound on earth, have no place in heaven.

In the end, I believe it’s the graciousness, the forgiveness, and the hope in men like James Waller and Willie Williams that acts as a signpost pointing even the most hardened skeptic to the reality of God’s love and forgiveness. These men are living examples of Peter’s admonition in 1 Peter 2:12 that we live such good lives among unbelievers that, “though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God ... “

There is no better evidence of the presence of Jesus in our world.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Persecuted, Jailed, Passionate: That's My Kind of Santa Claus

John 1:1

In reflecting on this season of the year, I have often wondered how a Martian reporter would do a story on Christmas in the United States. If one only had the dominant cultural icons of TV, movies, news media and retail stores, my guess is that the Martian viewing audience wouldn't have a clue as to what Christmas was about.

They might think it had something to do with snowmen or reindeer or retail store sales. And if any particular person rose to the top in the public's conscious awareness, it would be a jolly secular guy at risk for stroke or cardiac arrest who liked to dress in red and let his beard grow. Rather than just bemoan this fact, I assert that we need to remythologize Santa Claus.

Most people simply do not realize the rich ancient heritage behind the Santa Claus story. The secularized and sanitized contemporary version pales in comparison with the deeply Christian ethos and content of the original.

The origin of the St. Nicholas tradition goes back to Bishop Nicholas of Myra in Lycia (Turkey). Little solid historical information is known about Nicholas except that he was Bishop of Myra and died around A.D. 350.

Much exaggerated legendary material is connected with his life and ministry, but if nothing else, the legends tell us what values and beliefs the church held as important as they were projected onto Nicholas. To the bare minimum of facts, legend has supplied intriguing details through such writers as St. Methodius (patriarch of Constantinople in the 850s) and the Greek writer Metaphrastes in the 10th century.

The story goes that Nicholas was born in A.D. 280 of pious and wealthy parents who raised him in the fear and admonition of the Lord and taught him "sacred books" from the age of 5. He was forced to grow up quickly upon the sudden death of his parents.

Inheriting his family's wealth, he was left rich and lonely, but he had the desire to use his wealth for good. The first opportunity to do this happened when he heard about a father who, through an unfortunate turn of fortune, was left destitute with three daughters. Without marriage dowry money, the daughters would be condemned to a life of singleness and prostitution, so Nicholas threw some small bags of gold coins into the window of the home (some traditions say down the chimney), thereby saving the children from a life of misery.

Later as a teenager, Nicholas made a pilgrimage to Egypt and Palestine. Upon returning home he felt called to ministry and was subsequently ordained. He spent time at the Monastery of Holy Zion near Myra until an old priest had a vision that he was to be the new bishop.

The congregation overwhelmingly elected him bishop, and he became known for his holiness, passion for the gospel and zeal. He challenged the old gods and paganism at the principal temple in his district (to the god Artemis), and it was said that the evil spirits "fled howling before him."

But the old deities did not go easily. In A.D. 303, Emperor Diocletian directed the persecution of Christians, and "as he [Nicholas] was the chief priest of the Christians of this town and preached the truths of faith with a holy liberty, Nicholas was seized by the magistrates, tortured, then chained and thrown into prison with many other Christians."

With the Edict of Milan, Emperor Constantine ordered the cessation of all persecution of the church, and the Christians were released from prisons. Those who survived Diocletian's purges were called "confessors" because they wouldn't renege on their confession of Jesus as Lord.

When Bishop Nicholas walked out of the prison, the crowds called to him: "Nicholas! Confessor!" He had been repeatedly beaten until he was raw, and his body was the color of vermilion. Bishop Nicholas was also said to have intervened on behalf of unjustly charged prisoners and actively sought to help his people survive when they had experienced two successive bad harvests.

One of the most interesting stories connected with him was his role during the Arian controversy. St. Methodius asserted that "thanks to the teaching of St. Nicholas the metropolis of Myra alone was untouched by the filth of the Arian heresy, which it firmly rejected as death-dealing poison."

Arius, of course, asserted, contra John 1:1, that the Word [Jesus] was a created being and had not existed from all eternity.

One weak tradition has him actually attending the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, when Arian doctrine was rejected. The story goes that he got into a heated debate with Arius himself about whether there was a time when the Word did not exist. Nicholas strongly disagreed.

The debate ended suddenly when Nicholas punched out Arius then and there on the floor of the council! This gives new meaning to the ditty: "He's making a list and checking it twice, he's going to find out who's naughty or nice!"

The mental image of Santa Claus punching out Arius on the floor of the Council of Nicea with Emperor Constantine looking on has to fundamentally change the way one would ever see Santa Claus again. While I might not agree with his methods, I certainly admire his passion for Christological orthodoxy and doctrinal purity!

So when you think of Santa Claus, here's something to think about:

Think of a godly Christian bishop who was persecuted and imprisoned for faithfully proclaiming the faith under the most dangerous of circumstances. Think of someone who had a sensitive caring pastoral heart and took care of the flock of which God had made him shepherd. Think of someone who provided support and defense for children, the weak and poor, the helpless and victims of injustice. Think of someone with an unparalleled passion for doctrinal purity. And to top it off, think of someone whose whole purpose in life was to point people to Jesus.

Now that's my kind of Santa Claus!

Martin Luther King Jr.'s Preaching

Amos 5:24

This week the nation marks 50 years since the 1963 March on Washington. The most famous moment of that historic event is, of course, the speech by Martin Luther King Jr., now one of the most iconic speeches in American history. The refrain of that speech is one that is so embedded in the American memory that most people know the speech simply as the “I have a dream” speech. There are some things about that speech that likely could inform Christian preaching today.

The primary lesson we need to learn from this speech is the way it spoke to the conscience. Part of the gravity of this speech came from its location, before the monument to the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln. Part of the gravity came from the surroundings, a mighty throng of men, women and children gathered in the nation’s capital to ask for the cashing of that metaphorical “check” of equality guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence.

But a great deal of the power behind this speech came from the way King was pressing a claim onto the consciences of those who heard his voice.

He started with a contrast between the promised end to the injustice of slavery and the ongoing injustice of Jim Crow. This contrast is similar in content, though different somewhat in rhetoric, to King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. Against the so-called “white moderates” who counseled “patience,” King pointed out “an appalling condition” -- that Americans were still, in large numbers, exiles in their own land. With such injustice, there was no room for the “tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”

What was King doing here? He was doing precisely what the Old Testament prophets did with Israel and Judah, pointing out sin and judgment, warning implicitly of the justice of God.

We often hear caricatures of evangelical “hellfire and brimstone” preaching. But I don’t think I’ve heard a hellfire and brimstone sermon in years. Most evangelical churches breezily converse about sin in terms of consequences to be avoided. In fact, most of the preaching I hear on sin and judgment sounds an awful lot like my dentist telling me I should really floss more. I feel guilty and I know he’s right, but it hardly feels like a transcendent word -- because it isn’t.

King’s words, though, intentionally were resonant with the cadence of the King James Bible because he was speaking a word of judgment to a Bible Belt who knew that Bible. He wanted to confront consciences with what they said they believed. Whatever King’s personal doctrinal commitments were or weren’t, he didn’t preach Fosdick, Tillich or Niebuhr. He preached Jefferson and Madison and Lincoln to Americans, and he preached Amos and Isaiah and Jesus to Christians. And when the regenerate conscience is confronted with Jesus, remember what the Shepherd of Galilee said, “My sheep hear my voice....”

But King didn’t simply preach judgment. After all, Malcolm X could preach judgment, and did early in his activism, in harshly nationalist Islamic terms. King knew that his argument wouldn’t resonate with Christian consciences unless it appealed to the Christ-haunted imagination. That’s why he spoke of a dream.

What King did was to enable his hearers to imagine what it would be like if the appalling condition were reversed -- if freedom were to ring “from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.” He also didn’t picture this future as simply liberation for African Americans. He recognized that hatred is a heavy burden on the heart and the conscience. Those singing “Free at last!” aren’t just black men and women, but all people. His future is one in which “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.”

Where did King learn to speak with fiery denunciation and with welcoming invitation in the same speech? Well, I would suggest he learned it in church pews, listening to the preaching of the Gospel. He saw there a vision that doesn’t leave sin undisturbed. Jesus, as with the prophets before Him and the apostles after, consistently called out sin, and not merely in generic abstract terms but in all the ways sinners creatively find to consider our sins acceptable. Jesus often stops people who want to follow Him by pointing out that He isn’t sure they understood how His Gospel contradicts their lives.

But in the Bible, Gospel preaching never left off with condemnation. Jesus presents a Kingdom that He pictures consistently as including those who would never feel themselves welcomed. He asks us to picture what it would be like to join His little flock of future galactic servant-rulers. He asks us to imagine what, left to ourselves, we would never imagine, that the Gospel is really good news for us. It’s meant to leave us with the sort of shock that I remember from an old gospel song we used to sing in my boyhood church, “Whosoever surely meaneth me!”

I wonder how much weightier our preaching would be if we remembered to thunder God’s justice while always following with God’s welcome, through the proclamation of a God who in the crucified Christ is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:26).

As we remember 50 years of that monumental March on Washington, let’s remind ourselves of how far we have to go as Americans to see the promise of racial justice realized. Let’s remember how far we have to go as Christians to see Gospel unity in our own congregations. But let’s also think about the fact that there’s a reason this speech is still on our minds after 50 years, and maybe we could learn something in our Gospel preaching about what it takes to address both the conscience and the imagination.

Most of us will never address thousands of people before a statue of Lincoln. But many of us will stand in front of our small gatherings, before an unseen multitude of angels and the great cloud of witnesses. Let’s preach to the conscience. Let’s preach to the imagination. Let’s preach the bad news with thunder and the good news with laughter. Let’s identify where we’re trying to hide from God’s judgment and where we’re trying to hide from His invitation.

Let’s be hellfire-and-Kingdom preachers who know how both to warn and to welcome, how both to weep and to dream.

Living Without Fear

John 14:27

Gary Haugen works with a ministry that seeks to bring legal justice to cases of injustice in parts of the world with weak or corrupt legal systems. His interest in this ministry began when he graduated from Harvard in 1985 and traveled to South Africa. While there he worked with the National Initiative for Reconciliation, a church-based effort aimed at ending apartheid.

Three days after Haugen arrived in a black township, the South African regime declared martial law. He saw priests locked up, blacks beaten. Security forces detained him for attending a multiracial church service without permission.

The response of the Christian South Africans made a big impression on Haugen:

“What struck me was that in a country just utterly caged by fear -- where whites were terrified, blacks were terrified, where anybody who tried to do the right thing was going to get crushed -- I got to be with these Christians who had the most surprising absence of fear. They just did the right thing.

“I came to believe that they lived that way because they actually believed that what Jesus said was true. And I found that, to the extent that I acted as if I believed what Jesus said was true, I lived without fear.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was obsolete]

from New Yorker Magazine; article: The Enforcer · Samantha Power; edited by Rev. David Holwick via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database injusticecourage

Forty-Eight Attempts To Pass An Exam

Luke 8:15

Back in the 1950s, Maxcy Filer looked around at all the injustices being perpetrated against black people in our society, and he decided to do something about it. He decided to become a lawyer, so he could fight for justice and equality in the courts. Maybe he would even help change some of our country's racist laws.

So in 1966, at the age of thirty-six, Maxcy Filer graduated and took the California bar exam. He flunked that first time. But Maxcy wasn't about to give up.

Nothing would stop him from his dreams of practicing the law. So he took it again, right? Yes, he did. Forty-seven times. It took forty-eight tries and twenty-five years before Maxcy Filer finally passed the bar exam. He was sixty-one years old. His two sons had already passed the exam and opened their own law practice, at which Maxcy clerked.

Wouldn't you think he would have gotten discouraged after the first few attempts? Maybe so, but Maxcy and his family all held an unwavering faith in his ability to interpret the law. The whole family believed that he was meant to pass that test. When Maxcy was sworn in as an attorney, a thousand friends and colleagues from the field of law showed up to cheer him on. He had never given up, and they were there to honor his perseverance.

__________

Source: Kersey, Cynthia. Unstoppable (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc., 1998), 279-281 - Found at: http://www.sermons.com

What God Hates

Job 31

Six common sins God wants us to forsake.

1. God hates injustice.

2. God hates hypocrisy.

3. God hates the sowing of discord and disunity.

4. God hates idolatry.

5. God hates pride.

6. God hates covetousness.

Corruption of Civil Justice: Los Angeles Attacks the Scouts

A devastating earthquake has hit Los Angeles. Though it hasn’t registered on the Richter Scale yet, the resulting chaos could, in time, shake that city’s civilization to its roots.

What I’m talking about, in case you hadn’t heard, is not a real earthquake, but an event that could be just as disastrous. It is the Los Angeles City Council’s outrageous vote last week to punish thousands of boys and their families by breaking their ties with scouting. Their reason? The scouts embrace of a moral code which bans homosexuals from leadership positions.

Even worse, the L.A. Police Department, which used to be an icon for every boy, is now being asked to dismantle its Explorers unit, a program affiliated with scouting to train young cadets.

Imagine the confusion in the minds of boy scouts in Los Angeles when they see the police department, which represents the pinnacle of the moral social order, turning its back on them. Teaching these boys to respect law enforcement has just become even harder.

Of course, the City Council couched its justification for this action in civil rights terminology. One councilman said the Boy Scouts cannot defend why discrimination based on color is wrong, while banning homosexuals from leadership is right. Well, it’s actually easy to distinguish between the two.

It all starts with a worldview which looks to the Bible for guidance. Biblical teachings prompted Christian ministers and lay people, you may recall, to fight the evil of segregation.

But the same Scripture that denounces racial discrimination also denounces homosexuality. While God still loves homosexuals, he hates their sin, and so should we.

Because homosexuality is wrong in the sight of God, parents have a right — indeed an obligation — to shield their kids from its influences by enforcing standards in private membership groups like the Boy Scouts. Even the Supreme Court, which has not been a friend to religion in recent years, recognizes the right of the Boy Scouts to determine the moral standards of leadership within their own ranks.

So why have Los Angeles and other cities across the country chosen to treat boy scouts like modern-day lepers? There are two answers.

First, the radical homosexual movement is a potent force that has co-opted Hollywood, much of the news media, academia, and many liberal politicians. They are noisy, while mainstream voters don’t always make their voices heard.

But there’s another reason: Judeo-Christian values no longer influence politicians in Los Angeles — or many other places, for that matter.

Objective truth has been replaced by subjective speculation. That’s why city councilman can’t understand the difference between civil rights and the radical homosexual agenda. If there is no right or wrong, then all that matters is for the individual to do whatever he pleases.

Attacks like these are happening all across the country. So to the parents of scouts, I say, be faithful to your convictions. Explain to your kids why this is happening and help them to remain strong. And know that you’re not alone. Polls show that a majority of Americans support the Scouts, and politicians in the mis-named City of Angels are the ones on the fringes of society.

Now is the time for the majority who do care to stand by the Scouts — by volunteering, by financial contributions, and by prayer

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database injustice

The Justice of Easter: Thoughts From A Prison Yard

Psalms 85:10

I would venture to guess that JUSTICE is not a word that comes quickly to mind when you think about Easter. Maybe my years studying law, fighting for criminal justice reform, and ministering to prisoners have given me a different perspective.

You see, I can’t help but think of justice on Easter Sunday, because for the last almost thirty years, I have spent Easter behind bars worshiping the risen Christ with prisoners. Yesterday and Saturday, Mark Earley and I preached in two prisons in Florida.

And it is there, in a prison yard, where I see so vividly the contrast between man’s justice and the justice of God. Prisoners, of all people, know that they are paying a price for their crimes — the price of confinement, isolation, soul-crushing boredom, and yes, even fear. Yet they know that their time in prison does not ATONE for their crimes. They know that their imprisonment alone does not make things right.

But the men Mark Earley and I worshiped with this weekend in Florida DO know what God’s justice is all about. It’s about the Son of God who mounted the cross and paid the debt of justice in our place.

As Christ goes to the cross, He fulfills the words of the prophet Isaiah. He is “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities.” In His death, “the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him” (53:5). What do these ancient words mean?

Justice has been crying out since the first law-breaking bite of forbidden fruit. Can’t you imagine the cry for justice that rose up when Abel’s innocent blood was spilled in the first recorded act of violence? But it did not stop there; the injustice only intensified. From the Egyptians enslaving the Israelites, to the death of an innocent man named Uriah, justice howls for the omnipotent God to set things straight.

But not only do WE cry out for justice, God also demands justice. Looking at His creatures, He sees a people who are created to worship Him, and yet they defile His image at every turn. He speaks His list of grievances again and again through the prophets. The earth and heavens above groan for justice.

On the cross, Jesus Christ pays for all of those who turn to Him in faith. His death is a satisfaction for all of the injustices that people have committed or will commit. When Christ is raised from the dead on Easter Sunday, we see that there is hope of restoration for all perpetrators of injustice. That is something, by the way, that men and women in prisons fully appreciate.

The good news though is that the risen Christ is risen hope for all who demand justice and for all whose crimes demand payment. Imagine every prayer that has risen to God for justice from the time of Abel to the atrocities we hear about today in Darfur. Imagine every prayer of true repentance that has also wafted to the throne of grace: from King David, from the prisoner in his cell — or from the man or woman listening on a car radio.

Easter is good news indeed for all who look to Christ. Not only do we celebrate the mercy of God, we also celebrate justice satisfied — which is why the psalmist says that in our salvation righteousness and peace kiss each other (Psalm 85:10).

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database injusticeprison

Forgiving Injustice: Getting Our Head Around Magnanimity

Job 4:7

Every now and again, I come across a news story that stops me dead in my tracks. Last week, I came across two such stories about mind-boggling injustice and mind-bending mercy.

The first story concerns Willie “Pete” Williams, an African-American man from Georgia. He served more than two decades in prison for crimes he never committed.

In 1985, Williams was accused of aggravated sodomy, kidnapping, and rape. Despite his claims of innocence, Williams was sentenced to forty-five years. For the next twenty-two years, he slept on hard bunks, ate prison hash, and could only wonder about the life he might have lived on the outside.

But Williams did not give up. In July 2005, he contacted the Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal clinic that reexamines criminal cases using post-conviction DNA evidence. After investigating Williams’s claims that he was wrongly convicted on faulty eyewitness evidence, the Innocence Project took his case back to court, and Williams was found innocent.

After singing a few lines of “Amazing Grace,” 44-year-old Williams walked out of prison a free man and went home to eat a steak dinner with his family. A few days later, he appeared at a news conference claiming he wasn’t angry about spending half of his life behind bars. Instead, he demonstrated mercy and forgiveness. “Anybody can screw up,” he said. “We’re all human.”

Would you or I have reacted to such horrific injustice with such grace? I pray we’ll never find out.

Williams attributes his remarkable ability to forgive to his conversion to Christ in prison. “That’s been my rock,” he said. Williams’s faith in Christ carried him through years of being labeled a sex offender and gave him hope that his innocence would one day come to light.

And guess what? Williams wasn’t the only innocent man exonerated last month. James Waller, a 50-year-old Dallas prisoner, who also lost half his life to prison and parole, was declared innocent — also by the Innocence Project — of a 1982 conviction of raping a boy. At the court ruling, Waller, like Williams, said he wasn’t angry “because the Lord has given me so much.”

One commentator on a liberal weblog admitted he was astounded when he read Waller’s story in the NEW YORK TIMES. “I tried to imagine having that kind of magnanimity,” the blogger wrote, “and I just couldn’t wrap my mind around it.”

Well, the only way we can wrap our minds around that kind of forgiveness is to receive that kind of forgiveness ourselves — which God offers us in Christ. It’s only then that we will know what Waller and Williams know: that revenge and bitterness, while they abound on earth, have no place in heaven.

In the end, I believe it’s the graciousness, the forgiveness, and the hope in men like James Waller and Willie Williams that acts as a signpost pointing even the most hardened skeptic to the reality of God’s love and forgiveness. These men are living examples of Peter’s admonition in 1 Peter 2:12 that we live such good lives among unbelievers that, “though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God ... “

There is no better evidence of the presence of Jesus in our world.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

When Christians Fail To Vote

Isaiah 1:10

Evangelicals have a pitiful record when it comes to voting. Over the last 30 years, on average only half of eligible evangelicals took the time and made the effort to go to vote in a general election for a president.

It’s fair to ask, “So what?” Does this really matter to God? Is He really concerned about elections?

At one time I had concluded that perhaps it didn’t. I knew God absolutely was concerned about moral issues in our nation, such as abortion and homosexuality, and as a pastor I passionately represented those concerns in various ways. But I assumed that He probably wasn’t so concerned about such mundane things as elections and voting.

That was until a politically active Christian brother challenged me to study God’s Word on the matter. I did a word study on “justice,” which took me to the Hebrew word “mishphat,” which took me to the first chapter of Isaiah. What I found there rocked my world. From Isaiah 1:10-31, I found undeniable and irrefutable principles regarding our role and responsibility in the civil arena -- principles that should drive us to our knees, and then to the polls.

In Isaiah 1:10, the mighty prophet declares: “Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah!” The Lord, in this scathing rebuke, equated the rulers of Judah with the rulers of Sodom. But what had they done that would justify such a harsh comparison?

Isaiah revealed their wickedness in 1:17, where he declared that the nation had failed to “seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.” Isaiah continued the indictment in verse 23, where he proclaimed: “Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow’s case does not come before them.”

This alarming indictment was because of Judah’s civil sin. The national leadership had failed miserably in key areas of civil responsibility: justice, deliverance from oppression and protection for the helpless. They had also allowed their rulings and policies to be influenced by bribes and “gifts.” God explicitly identified this failure as “evil” in Isaiah 1:16, and equated these civil sins with the depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah in 1:10.

But why would a fair and just God include the general population of Judah in this indictment? These failures came from Judah’s national leadership, not the average person on the street. When we look closely at Judah’s broader history, we find that God had indeed given the people a key role in deciding their leadership.

In Deuteronomy 16:18-19, Moses commanded the people to: “Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the LORD your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly. Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe.” God assigned the people the responsibility of appointing fair and just civil leaders in each local area -- leaders who would not be tempted by bribes.

In Isaiah’s day, God not only held the leaders accountable for their civil immorality, He held the people accountable for their actions as well.

The principle we draw from this passage is this: When the citizens have a voice in the selection and direction of their civil leaders, God holds both the leaders and the citizens accountable for the civil sins of their government.

It was true of Judah, but is it fair to suggest that God applies this standard to us today? Consider the following:

The citizens of the United States elect the leaders of our nation -- leaders who set civil and social policies for our nation, including policies on moral issues such as abortion, “gay marriage,” euthanasia, assisted suicide, and more. The decisions of these leaders directly impact the moral direction of our nation. Therefore, the people’s vote (or failure to vote) ultimately determines our nation’s civil, social and moral direction.

Furthermore, the president is responsible for appointing members of the federal judiciary. These judges interpret laws and make legal decisions that affect the entire nation. Therefore, the citizen’s role in each election directly impacts every level of government.

Because the American system is a representative form of government, there is an obvious relationship between an elected leader’s actions and the citizens who elected the leader -- or who allowed his election by not voting.

It logically follows that God holds the citizens accountable for immoral governmental policies.

God has established universal standards of justice that He expects all nations to uphold and enforce -- and the United States is not exempt from these standards. If our government refuses to uphold and enforce them, we shouldn’t be surprised at the judgment that is certain to follow. But even more sobering is the reality that when the citizens choose their leaders, He holds the citizens corporately accountable for the actions of their leaders.

Our vote -- or failure to vote -- has a direct bearing on not only the election, but on how the Lord will deal with our land. If we fail to vote for candidates that most closely reflect God’s standards -- or if we fail to vote -- we should not expect to escape the consequences.

________

John Revell is editor of SBC Life.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #19183]

Forty-Eight Attempts To Pass An Exam

Luke 8:15

Back in the 1950s, Maxcy Filer looked around at all the injustices being perpetrated against black people in our society, and he decided to do something about it. He decided to become a lawyer, so he could fight for justice and equality in the courts. Maybe he would even help change some of our country's racist laws.

So in 1966, at the age of thirty-six, Maxcy Filer graduated and took the California bar exam. He flunked that first time. But Maxcy wasn't about to give up.

Nothing would stop him from his dreams of practicing the law. So he took it again, right? Yes, he did. Forty-seven times. It took forty-eight tries and twenty-five years before Maxcy Filer finally passed the bar exam. He was sixty-one years old. His two sons had already passed the exam and opened their own law practice, at which Maxcy clerked.

Wouldn't you think he would have gotten discouraged after the first few attempts? Maybe so, but Maxcy and his family all held an unwavering faith in his ability to interpret the law. The whole family believed that he was meant to pass that test. When Maxcy was sworn in as an attorney, a thousand friends and colleagues from the field of law showed up to cheer him on. He had never given up, and they were there to honor his perseverance.

__________

Source: Kersey, Cynthia. Unstoppable (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc., 1998), 279-281 - Found at: http://www.sermons.com

When Christians Fail To Vote

Isaiah 1:10

Evangelicals have a pitiful record when it comes to voting. Over the last 30 years, on average only half of eligible evangelicals took the time and made the effort to go to vote in a general election for a president.

It’s fair to ask, “So what?” Does this really matter to God? Is He really concerned about elections?

At one time I had concluded that perhaps it didn’t. I knew God absolutely was concerned about moral issues in our nation, such as abortion and homosexuality, and as a pastor I passionately represented those concerns in various ways. But I assumed that He probably wasn’t so concerned about such mundane things as elections and voting.

That was until a politically active Christian brother challenged me to study God’s Word on the matter. I did a word study on “justice,” which took me to the Hebrew word “mishphat,” which took me to the first chapter of Isaiah. What I found there rocked my world. From Isaiah 1:10-31, I found undeniable and irrefutable principles regarding our role and responsibility in the civil arena -- principles that should drive us to our knees, and then to the polls.

In Isaiah 1:10, the mighty prophet declares: “Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah!” The Lord, in this scathing rebuke, equated the rulers of Judah with the rulers of Sodom. But what had they done that would justify such a harsh comparison?

Isaiah revealed their wickedness in 1:17, where he declared that the nation had failed to “seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.” Isaiah continued the indictment in verse 23, where he proclaimed: “Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow’s case does not come before them.”

This alarming indictment was because of Judah’s civil sin. The national leadership had failed miserably in key areas of civil responsibility: justice, deliverance from oppression and protection for the helpless. They had also allowed their rulings and policies to be influenced by bribes and “gifts.” God explicitly identified this failure as “evil” in Isaiah 1:16, and equated these civil sins with the depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah in 1:10.

But why would a fair and just God include the general population of Judah in this indictment? These failures came from Judah’s national leadership, not the average person on the street. When we look closely at Judah’s broader history, we find that God had indeed given the people a key role in deciding their leadership.

In Deuteronomy 16:18-19, Moses commanded the people to: “Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the LORD your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly. Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe.” God assigned the people the responsibility of appointing fair and just civil leaders in each local area -- leaders who would not be tempted by bribes.

In Isaiah’s day, God not only held the leaders accountable for their civil immorality, He held the people accountable for their actions as well.

The principle we draw from this passage is this: When the citizens have a voice in the selection and direction of their civil leaders, God holds both the leaders and the citizens accountable for the civil sins of their government.

It was true of Judah, but is it fair to suggest that God applies this standard to us today? Consider the following:

The citizens of the United States elect the leaders of our nation -- leaders who set civil and social policies for our nation, including policies on moral issues such as abortion, “gay marriage,” euthanasia, assisted suicide, and more. The decisions of these leaders directly impact the moral direction of our nation. Therefore, the people’s vote (or failure to vote) ultimately determines our nation’s civil, social and moral direction.

Furthermore, the president is responsible for appointing members of the federal judiciary. These judges interpret laws and make legal decisions that affect the entire nation. Therefore, the citizen’s role in each election directly impacts every level of government.

Because the American system is a representative form of government, there is an obvious relationship between an elected leader’s actions and the citizens who elected the leader -- or who allowed his election by not voting.

It logically follows that God holds the citizens accountable for immoral governmental policies.

God has established universal standards of justice that He expects all nations to uphold and enforce -- and the United States is not exempt from these standards. If our government refuses to uphold and enforce them, we shouldn’t be surprised at the judgment that is certain to follow. But even more sobering is the reality that when the citizens choose their leaders, He holds the citizens corporately accountable for the actions of their leaders.

Our vote -- or failure to vote -- has a direct bearing on not only the election, but on how the Lord will deal with our land. If we fail to vote for candidates that most closely reflect God’s standards -- or if we fail to vote -- we should not expect to escape the consequences.

________

John Revell is editor of SBC Life.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #19183]

God Is Not Mocked -- Bernard Madoff and the Limitations of Human Justice

Job 24:1

According to media reports, Bernard L. Madoff is expected to plead guilty to eleven felony charges when he appears today in a Manhattan federal court. Madoff, whose massive Ponzi scheme led to a multi-billion dollar financial collapse, will now be counted among the most infamous of criminal investors. All told, his plea agreement with federal prosecutors is expected to result in a virtual life sentence.

Sources close to the prosecution indicated that a deal with Madoff would produce his guilty pleas, saving the government millions of dollars in prosecution costs. In this case, the plea agreement is little more than a case of the defendant throwing himself on the mercy of the court. Mercy is likely to be scarce, however, and Madoff is expected to receive a prison term of 150 years, along with financial penalties.

Madoff’s investment fraud is far-reaching in its impact, representing a catastrophe for investors scattered all over the world. Nevertheless, a disproportionate share of the victims is found among New York’s Jewish elite, where investing with Madoff had been seen as an enviable opportunity to reap above-average returns on investments.

One of the most famous of Bernard Madoff’s victims was Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who has devoted so much of his literary work to the search for justice on earth.

There will no doubt be some satisfaction for the victims when Barnard Madoff is heard admitting guilt in his own voice. Justice is served when a guilty party admits to the guilt and accepts the rightful sentence. But this service to justice does not achieve justice. Those who lost everything they had to Madoff’s scheme will hardly be satisfied to see him led off to a life sentence. After all, they must go back to rebuild their lives. The money is gone. There is no fund for restitution that can make these investors whole again. This entire society was wounded by his crimes.

Some, advanced in years, lost millions. Wealthy investors are now virtually impoverished. Retirees who had expected to live well off of their Madoff-managed funds are now trying to put their lives back together.

According to PORTFOLIO magazine, Elie Wiesel lost $22 million of his personal funds. His charity lost another $15 million. Once poor, Wiesel had become rich. Now he is no longer rich.

Wiesel will be among those who are dissatisfied at the justice served upon Madoff by the federal court. As he told PORTFOLIO, he has his own idea of an appropriate sentence for Madoff: “I would like him to be in a solitary cell with a screen.... On that screen, there should be pictures of his victims, one after another after another.” “‘Psychopath’ is too nice a word for him,” Wiesel lamented.

Whatever the outcome of today’s hearing, Bernard Madoff will never in his earthly life receive the justice that is his rightful due. Nor will his victims receive the consolation of full and adequate justice. Madoff could serve a hundred life sentences and his victims remain just as broken and devastated as they are now.

The case of Bernard Madoff is a reminder that human justice, so important to civilization and our moral order, is a woefully inadequate justice. Our courts can go only so far, and can exact only a limited approximation of true justice.

True justice requires full payment of an adequate penalty, and no penalty is truly adequate when the full weight of human evil is honestly faced. True justice requires the restoration of the victim to the state before the injury, but no human court, however admirable, can bring a murder victim back to life, cleanse the rape victim of her memory, or restore the ability to walk to one injured by a drunk driver.

Humans are invested with a grave responsibility to seek and to serve justice. Made in God’s own image, our souls cry out for justice, but justice is never fully achieved by any human court, justice system, or judge.

True justice is achieved only by the only one who is truly just and all powerful, whose verdicts are perfect and whose judgments are eternal. Human justice points to the need for a greater justice. The very inadequacy of human courts points to our yearning for a heavenly court.

We yearn for the end of history, when God will bring His creation to a perfect end; when God’s redemptive purposes will be known to all; when justice flows like a mighty river. On that day justice will be perfect, and the righteous Judge will be none other than Jesus Christ, who paid the only adequate penalty for sin. On that day, God will judge both the quick and the dead, and his judgment upon the sheep and the goats will be both holy and just.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once famously stated that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” [*] Our only assurance that this is so is the assurance that God will surely judge -- and judge perfectly. On that day, His righteousness will be on full display. For believers in Christ, every eye will be dry and every tear will be wiped away. The lame will leap and the blind will see. The dead will rise from their graves.

When Bernard Madoff stands to plead guilty to his crimes in today’s hearing, justice will be served, but not achieved. The victims will be only partially -- VERY partially - satisfied. Yet, be not dismayed. Justice IS coming and our yearning for true justice will be fully satisfied in Christ. God is not mocked.

________

[*] King was actually quoting Massachusetts minister and abolitionist Theodore Parker, who in 1853 said, "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one. . . . But from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice." (Holwick)

Turning the Other Cheek: the Jackie Robinson Story

Luke 9:54

The words are famous even among those who know little about baseball: “I’m looking for a ballplayer with guts enough not to fight back.” They were spoken by Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey to the man whom he’d chosen to break baseball’s color barrier: Jackie Robinson.

We see this famous scene in the film, “42,” a biopic about Robinson. “42” — named for the number Robinson wore on his uniform — is a fine and memorable film starring Chadwick Boseman as Robinson and Harrison Ford as the immortal Branch Rickey. But the film all but omits the most significant factor in Jackie Robinson’s ability to endure almost unbearable insults and physical attacks on the field: namely his strong Christian faith.

Branch Rickey wasn’t the first person to teach Robinson that keeping his temper was more powerful than letting it blow. As I note in my new book, “Seven Men and the Secret of Their Greatness,” while he was a student at Pasadena Junior College, “Jackie met a Methodist preacher named Karl Downs. Downs knew that Jackie was a Christian and taught him that exploding in anger was not the Christian answer to injustice. But he explained that a life truly dedicated to Christ was not submissive; on the contrary, it was heroic.... Downs eventually led Jackie to a deeper faith in Jesus Christ. He began to see that the path to justice would be done not with fists and fury but with love and restraint.”

As “42” opens, we see Jackie Robinson sitting in the office of Brooklyn Dodgers manager Branch Rickey hearing the incredible news that Rickey wants Jackie to play for the Dodgers. Then Rickey acts out the vicious varieties of bigotry Jackie will face from white hotel managers, restaurant waiters, and fellow ballplayers — insults he will have to face with dignity.

How much more dramatic this scene would have been had “42” told the whole story. Rickey knew that Robinson shared his devout Christian faith, and wanted to reinforce the spiritual dimensions of the battle into which the two men were about to step. So Rickey pulled out a copy of a book by Giovanni Papini, “Life of Christ.” He flipped to the passage in which Papini discusses the Sermon on the Mount. There he referred to Jesus’ call to “turn the other cheek” as “the most stupefying of [Jesus’s] revolutionary teachings.”

Rickey’s faith told him that injustice had to be fought wherever it was found. As for Jackie Robinson, he believed that God had chosen him for this noble purpose. And he knew that if he committed himself to doing this great thing, God would give him the strength he needed to see it through.

Day after day, Jackie Robinson’s faith fueled his ability to play great baseball. And night after night, he got down on his knees, asking God for strength in the face of unrelenting hatred.

The reason I include Jackie Robinson in a book about some of the greatest men who ever lived is not because he played great baseball, but because he engaged in a heroic sacrifice. While he didn’t have to, Jackie Robinson followed Jesus and sacrificed his right to fight back.

Jackie Robinson changed America for the better. He did it by living out, on and off the baseball field, the revolutionary words of Jesus: Turn the other cheek.

________

Copyright (c) 2013 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

======================

Another commentary by Terry Mattingly: "‘42’ glosses over truth of Jackie Robinson’s devout faith," April 26, 2013.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/apr/26/terry-mattingly-42-glosses-over-truth-of-jackie/

Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey knew that the first black player in Major League Baseball was going to go through hell.

That’s why the cigar-chomping, Bible-thumping Rickey set out to find a man who would keep believing — when facing scathing racial hatred — that the powers of heaven were on his side. As baseball writers often have noted, Rickey needed someone who could turn the other cheek — as well as a double play.

In writer-director Brian Helgeland’s new movie, “42,” Jackie Robinson states the challenge in blunt terms.

“You want a man,” Robinson asks, “who doesn’t have the guts to fight back?”

“I want a man who has the guts NOT to fight back,” Rickey says.

The fit was perfect. In Helgeland’s script, Rickey offers this churchy equation: “Robinson’s a Methodist. I’m a Methodist. God’s a Methodist. We can’t go wrong.”

That’s the stuff of movies, alright, but this kind of faith reference remains somewhat unusual in a Hollywood blockbuster, said Eric Metaxas, best known for writing the best-selling “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy.”

The problem, he said, is that “42” omitted many details that would demonstrate that faith was crucial to the whole story.

There’s no doubt Robinson was a remarkable man, Metaxas argues in his new “Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness.” But Robinson also was a remarkably courageous and devout Christian.

Thus, he included Robinson’s story in a book that explores the faith commitments of George Washington, William Wilberforce, Eric Liddell, Pope John Paul II, Chuck Colson and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

In the classic “Chariots of Fire,” which won the Oscar for Best Picture, the Olympic runner and future missionary Liddell is shown preaching and discussing the beliefs that led to his pivotal decision not to run in Sunday races at the 1924 Olympics in Paris.

“Try to imagine that movie without those scenes,” Metaxas said in a telephone interview.

The key “42” scene — when Robinson meets Rickey on Aug. 28, 1945 — could have depicted what actually happened at the time: Rickey pulled out a copy of a classic devotional work, “Life of Christ” by Giovanni Papini, and read aloud the passage in which the author discusses the Sermon on the Mount, including the reference that describes the “turn the other cheek” challenge as “the most stupefying” of the teachings of Jesus.

It wouldn’t have taken long to read the Scripture that so inspired Rickey and Robinson, Metaxas said. The Gospel of St. Matthew states:

“Ye have heard it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

The reason, quite literally, Rickey “chose Jackie Robinson was his strong moral character and his Christian faith,” Metaxas said.

“There were other great black players out there. But could they have taken the stand that Jackie took? ...

“That first meeting is the moment. That scene is the heart of this story and Jesus is right there in the middle of it.”

But movies are movies, and what often matters most are the visual images.

Thus, it’s crucial Helgeland didn’t include scenes in which Robinson is shown doing what he repeatedly said he did day after day in those tense early years in baseball — getting down on his knees to pray.

“I’m not saying that this is a horrible movie,” Metaxas said.

“Yes, Robinson is shown closing his eyes for 0.87 seconds before he runs out onto the field, and he’s hit by the occasional inspirational ray of sunlight. ... But why are people afraid of showing a true American hero getting down on his knees and praying? What’s so scary about that?

“It’s like people think that prayer is a sign of weakness. Well, getting down on his knees didn’t make Jackie Robinson weak.

“That’s what helped make him strong.”

________

© 2013 Knoxville News Sentinel.

Voodoo Makes You Feel Better

Luke 9:54

“We asked employees to recall a time when their supervisors abused them in the workplace,” says Lindie Liang of the School of Business and Economics at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. The point: to study what made people feel better after being treated unfairly by their boss.

To relieve their stress, the researchers had a study group of 229 people in Canada and the United States abuse voodoo dolls representing their bosses with pins, candles, or pliers, and then fill out a questionnaire to see if they felt better compared to a control group that didn’t abuse the dolls.

The results were published in The Leadership Quarterly, and “What we found, across several studies,” Liang says, is “people who had the opportunity to retaliate, to harm the voodoo doll that symbolized their boss, they actually showed restored justice perception.” In other words, he says, they felt they got revenge “without actually murdering their supervisor.”

*

[The original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #17268]

from This Is True internet newsletter · Randy Cassingham via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database injusticeretaliation

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate