Sermon Illustrations on Prejudice — page 2

Malcolm X On Brotherhood

Acts 7:26

Malcolm X is a very controversial figure. Born into a Christian family, he committed crimes and ended up in jail. There he discovered the faith of the Black Muslims. Black Muslims taught that all whites are devils and Malcolm X had no trouble accepting this - he despised whites and advocated the violent overthrow of our racist society. Toward the end of his life, Malcolm X began to change; his religious beliefs grew closer to mainstream Islam. A pilgrimage to Mecca played a significant part in this. During this journey he wrote about his experiences:

Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races here in this ancient Holy Land. There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blondes to black-skinned Africans. But we were all displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white. America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem.

Here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept on the same rug - while praying to the same God - with fellow Muslims, whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white. And in the words and in the deeds of the white Muslims, I felt the same sincerity that I felt among the black African Muslims of Nigeria, Sudan and Ghana.

We were truly all the same (brothers) - because their belief in one God had removed the white from their minds, the white from their behavior, and the white from their attitude. With racism plaguing America like an incurable cancer, the so-called 'Christian' white American heart should be more receptive to a proven solution to such a destructive problem.

________

Was Malcolm X correct? Every American Christian needs to pay attention to his rebuke.

Fighter Pilot Finds Freedom From Racism and Self

John 8:32

Southern Baptist “Top Gun” Richard Toliver found freedom in the cockpit, from which he had dodged missiles and anti-aircraft fire while flying 446 combat missions in Southeast Asia during his twenty-six-year Air Force career. He also battled racism.

Toliver’s idyllic childhood was spent in multi-racial California — ”paradise,” as he remembers it — during the early 1940s. He dreamed of flying airplanes like those that flew overhead from nearby Oxnard Naval Training Base. That dream shattered when his family returned to his segregated birthplace in the South after wartime jobs ended.

“I hated the next ten years living in the South,” Toliver told SBC Life. “I was trapped in a prison. Everywhere there were barriers of poverty, color, hopelessness, despair, and vicious name-calling.”

Today, Toliver at eighty-two years old has held key positions at Apollo Baptist Church, an SBC congregation in Glendale, Arizona. He also is president of the local chapter of the Tuskegee Airmen, active in the Red River Valley Fighter Pilots Association, and a nationally known motivational speaker.

In his nearly five-hundred-page memoir — An Uncaged Eagle: True Freedom — Toliver gives credit to the many people who encouraged him throughout his life. He writes of his courageous mother, family relatives, and a white man who was a “ray of light” in the darkness of racism. That man provided Toliver, a Black high school graduate, with a scholarship to study at Alabama’s Tuskegee Institute, now University. There he met and learned from the Tuskegee Airmen who broke the military’s color barrier in World War II, who “inspired, motivated, and prepared” Toliver for an Air Force career, he said. Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., fellow Air Force officers, and in the 1990s, presidential candidate Ross Perot were others who impacted Toliver’s life.

More than anyone else apart from God, Toliver credits his wife Peggy’s Christian life for his success. Married fifty-eight years, she dazzled Toliver and the Air Force community with her gracious attitude, warmth, and servant’s attitude while successfully parenting the family’s three biological and five fostered or adopted children.

Toliver’s disciplined character and Peggy’s background as an educator and stalwart Christian kept their children on the right path, the retired colonel said. They were also aided by Peggy’s mom, Elsie Hairston, who lived with the Tolivers for twenty-seven years after his father-in-law died.

“The most important part of my life’s experience was discovering that God is in control of everything,” Toliver said. “He allowed me to become all that I am today.”

After years of putting God off and making “deals” he failed to keep, Toliver had what he calls a “Damascus Road” experience at high altitude in clear air. The F-15 he was piloting was struck by lightning. After safely landing the crippled jet, Toliver heard a voice that said, “How long are you going to keep up this charade? How long are you going to refuse to settle your debt with me?”

Toliver wrestled with those questions over the next few days. “Even the family dog avoided me!” he said. He found himself spiritually and mentally on trial. There was a “Prosecutor,” who listed even his sins from childhood and declared him “guilty.” However, an abiding “Presence” stood in Toliver’s defense, and “the hand of Jesus reached down and grasped my outstretched hands,” Toliver writes of his gripping salvation experience in his book.

Toliver, the first fully qualified African American F-15 pilot and successful in hundreds of combat missions, once acquired the nickname “Black Baron.” This was in deference to the acclaimed German “Red Baron” of WWI. After Toliver’s conversion, others started using “Preacher” as his call sign as a recognition of the pilot’s frequent scripture-based remarks and lifestyle void of previous colorful language and behavior.

Working out his salvation took much longer than his initial capitulation to Christ, Toliver said. He had to deal with the incessant anger that burned within him whenever faced with adversity, setbacks, and real or perceived racism. “I was committed to allowing the Lord to guide my path, but ‘self’ kept getting in the way,” he said.

Through Bible study and prayer, Toliver eventually came to realize that achieving success in the Air Force had become an idol for him. Ultimately it was in the person-by-person forgiving of people who had wronged him that Toliver first glimpsed true freedom. He had to forgive his father for leaving his mother with six children to struggle for themselves in the Deep South. Next it was his brother-in-law for his mistreatment of Toliver’s sister.

“Only then did the healing begin for past hurts caused by racial prejudice, slights, disappointments, and other emotional barriers,” Toliver wrote. “I finally found my freedom. The cage of despair had to be opened from the inside, and the path to freedom was through the door of forgiveness.”

After hearing a base chaplain preach that parents needed to allow Jesus Christ to be the perfect model for their children, Toliver called his family together. He told them he was flawed, and they needed to look to Jesus as their example. “A tremendous burden was lifted from my shoulders,” he said after his family reiterated their love for him even though they recognized he was not perfect.

Toliver retired from the Air Force in 1988, four years after being promoted to Colonel. Consulting jobs led to political activism, which in time resulted in being introduced to Ross Perot, the U.S. presidential candidate for the Reform Party in 1996. In Perot’s introduction to Toliver’s book, the billionaire wrote, “Dick spent his formative years overcoming incredible obstacles during some of the most challenging racial times of the Deep South. ... His personal struggle and eventual freedom serve as a roadmap for anyone who feels trapped by life’s circumstances.” Toliver’s bottom line: “True freedom ... enables us to act selflessly, forgive all injuries, love unconditionally and humbly serve without expectation of rewards. It is the spiritual state that reaches the very presence of our Creator.”

Unpicking stitches in A seamless past

Unpicking stitches in a seamless past

John Robson

The Ottawa Citizen

Wednesday, September 05, 2001

If the UN conference on racism hadn't been hijacked by raging anti-Semites, it might have started a thoughtful discussion of what to do about historical injustices like slavery. Such as nothing.

OK, not the UN. So come instead to the University of Texas at Austin, where I once taught U.S. history. As you might expect, when the topic of slavery came up, all but the dullest students looked around and thought "Slave ... Slave-owner ... Oooh, house slave ..." and then "I'd be a slave" or "a slave-owner." From there, it's a very short jump to the notion that the dark brown people in the class were descendants of slaves and the pink-brown ones descendants of slave-owners, which made everyone squirm in their chairs. It's not so simple. Almost every black in Texas is descended from slaves. But students of Asian ancestry weren't descended from slaves or slave-owners. Still, weren't they bystanders in a drama involving the rest of the class? No.

Only about one in four whites owned slaves in 1860. So is only one white southerner in four descended from slave-owners? Of course not: descendants of slave-owners married those of non-slave-owners. So are they all descended from slave-owners? Of course not: Some are descended entirely from whites who moved to the south after the Civil War, from the North or abroad.

Are purebred northerners mostly off the hook since there was less slavery there and it ended sooner? Some say no, because they profited directly or indirectly from the trade in slave-grown cotton. But if, as many believe, slavery was inefficient, it deprived northern merchants of opportunities for profit. Are the Yankees owed compensation, too? And if a slave-owner's grandson married an abolitionist's granddaughter, does it cancel out?

Even that's simple compared to the fact that, at Emancipation, about one in four slaves had a white father. Given one generation every 25 years, by 1890 one in 16 U.S. blacks had two white grandfathers, six in 16 one, and nine in 16 none. By 1915, one in 256 had four white great-grandparents, 12 in 256 three, 54 two, 108 one, and 81 none. By 1940, at most 6,561 in 65,536 had no white ancestors; by 1965, barely one per cent; by 1990, .01 per cent. Almost all those whites were slave-owners. The one group in America that is mostly descended from American slave-owners is blacks, not whites. (Many Caribbean black immigrants may not have white ancestors.) Must they pay each other compensation?

If so, they might sue Africans; president Abdoulayé Wadé of Senegal just said he's descended from slave-owning African kings, so "If one can claim reparations for slavery, the slaves of my ancestors, or their descendants, can also claim money from me. Slavery has been practised by all people in the world." (It has, and was worse in most places than in the U.S.)

If the claim is not against all descendants of slave-owners on behalf of all descendants of slaves, just against anyone better off now because of slavery on behalf of anyone worse off, what can this mean? Geopolitically, we can make reasonable guesses about "what if?" history. But not for individuals. Change anything in the past, and you erase one of the couplings that led to each of us existing at all.

It's obviously appalling to reflect that absent a slave-owner impregnating a slave you wouldn't exist. But if you shake anyone's family tree hard enough, some strange stuff falls out. Danish raiders didn't court British maidens with flowers and poetry, you know. We can't change the past, of course. But if we recognize that it's seamless, we see that we can't pick out the consequences of past injustice and eliminate only them.

Who in West Africa doesn't have at least one slave-owning king in his lineage, and at least one slave? What white person doesn't have Roman slave-owners and slaves in their past? And guess who's coming to dinner? A leading British geneticist says 11 million white Britons have black blood, from black traders in the 16th century. I might; many of my relatives lived by the sea when not being chased across it by religious intolerance or oppressed in the Borders. By now, I can't figure out who I should sue or be sued by. So let's not.

Whatever my ancestors did or had done to them, guilt is not carried in the bloodstream. Clear legal obligations don't lapse with time. But even if you could prove I was descended from William the Conqueror and not Edmund Ironside, and my neighbour the reverse, or from Caesar and Caractacus, time and chance have washed out any traceable pattern of rights and wrongs.

I don't spend time brooding over the Edict of Nantes. I'm grateful to be here, and I'm trying to show it by not oppressing anyone. Isn't that enough?

John Robson is Senior Writer and Deputy Editorial Pages Editor. Read recent columns by John Robson at www.ottawacitizen.com .

Profiling Evil & Overcoming It

Jeremiah 17:9

How do you "profile" evil, especially evil that clothes itself in religious fanaticism?

Since the Sept. 11 attack and the ongoing war against terrorism, "racial profiling" has taken on a new meaning. Particularly intriguing is the fact that, while blacks in America have often perceived themselves as victims of such profiling tactics, a recent survey showed that over 71 percent of blacks were in favor of profiling Arab Muslims. Hugh Prize, president of the National Urban League, was very disturbed by the alarming survey, saying, "The survey reflects the fear and the emotional state of our time."

The survey is disturbing; profiling is perceived by many as a troubling aspect of criminal investigation. Yet blacks, like other citizens, should not be blamed for responding negatively in the aftermath of such a profound terrorist attack. The events of Sept. 11 were so frightening and psychologically overwhelming that many Americans have been challenged to reexamine their view of personal liberties and national security.

From a more rational perspective, most Americans are able to see the distinction between the harassment of a suspected drug dealer driving an expensive automobile in an affluent neighborhood and the pursuit of those who commit such diabolic, evil acts as hijacking planes to use as missiles, destroying thousands of innocent Americans. These horrific acts of terror bring new meaning to the prophet's words, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9, KJV).

Profiling clearly has its limitations. Racial profiling should never be used as the singular determinant as law enforcement seeks to bring to justice the perpetrators of these wicked acts -- "the evildoers," in the words of President Bush. What is most disturbing about the evil of Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network is the vastness of its scope. How tragic it is that this murderous cancer has spread through 40 or more countries, hiding in the shadows of normal communities, going seemingly unnoticed.

In contrast to the evil of this religious fanaticism, we are reminded in the Christian Scriptures: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21).

To overcome the evil, our nation has been praying, and we need to keep praying, but just as the war is being fought on many fronts, so must intercessory prayers be made on many fronts. We must pray for our nation and, indeed, for the global community.

Martin Luther King Jr. said, "A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." In fact, what is taking place in Afghanistan is nothing more that a 21st-century "Taliban apartheid," where 25,000 people, mostly foreigners, are oppressively ruling 2 million Afghan citizens, including subjecting women to shameful acts of violence and to social isolation from healthcare and education.

No reasonable person wants war. As a parent of a daughter serving in the armed forces, I, like many other Americans, am most concerned about seeing our young men and women being put in harm's way. However, British Prime Minster Tony Blair is absolutely right in saying, "Whatever the dangers of the action we take, the dangers of inaction are far, far greater."

There is a word of caution as we act against evil. We must not be seduced by hate or the need to get revenge, lest we become like the evildoers we so deplore. Overcome evil by doing good. Let us continue to pray for the suffering Afghans and continue to deliver food to the refugees who find themselves real victims in the quagmire of the evil forced on them by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. As America faces the threat of terrorist attacks at home with biological warfare such as anthrax, let us continue to reach out to one another with acts of compassion and moral support. Let us pray for God to grant us strength in these difficult days, helping us not to judge people by their outward appearance, but rather by the content of their character. I'm convinced that the will of God will never lead us where the grace of God cannot keep us.

Only with God's help we can overcome evil.

________________

Terriel R. Byrd, Ph.D., is assistant professor of religion and director of Ethnic Church Ministries at Palm Beach Atlantic College, West Palm Beach, Fla.

*

Why Newspapers Need To Hire More Christians

Maybe more journalists ought to bring their Bible to work. Or at least read it at home.

In what has to be one of the most compelling obituaries of the year, The New York Times recently reported on the death of former Times reporter McCandlish Phillips.

Phillips was responsible for one of the Grey Lady’s most famous stories — about a high-ranking Ku Klux Klan leader who also happened to be Jewish. But that was only one small chapter in Phillips’ long life and career.

As the Times also noted:

An evangelical Christian, he kept a Bible on his desk and led prayer meetings for like-minded colleagues (there were none when he joined the paper, he noted ruefully) in a conference room off the newsroom.

He refrained from smoking, drinking, cursing and gambling, each of which had been refined to a high, exuberant art in the Times newsroom — the last of these to such a degree that at midcentury the newspaper employed two bookmakers-in-residence, nominally on the payroll as news clerks. [New York Times]

Conservatives have long lamented our East Coast secular media, charging that its worldview bias (even more than its overt political bias) skews America’s information supply. Too often, Christians feel like they’re cast as the type of fringe characters one might associate with the bar scene from Star Wars. (And remember, 77 percent of Americans identify as Christians.)

This longstanding lack of diversity in the newsroom is confirmed by the Times’ McCandlish Phillips obituary, which noted that “there were [no other evangelical Christians working at the Times] when he joined the paper.”

That was unfortunate. Media outlets who want to understand America should at least have a few journalists hanging around who share — or at least, aren’t hostile to — the Christian faith.

And, in fairness, many do. For example, The Washington Post employs E.J. Dionne and (my former editor) Melinda Henneberger — both of whom are liberals well versed in faith. They write eloquently on religious topics.

I asked Henneberger about her faith in her work. Here’s what she said:

No one has ever said anything about it in any newsroom I’ve ever worked in — well, except for Maureen Dowd once walking by my desk, catching a glimpse of me wearing my grandmother’s extremely large cross, which her grandmother had worn on the boat to America, and saying, “Oh my God, even Madonna doesn’t wear those anymore.”

Anyway, no one ever would say a word at the Post, I don’t think; there are plenty of other believers of all kinds there, and they seem to value diversity of experience and opinion along with every other kind, which I really appreciate.

I’ll tell you what’s a trip, though: Being Catholic at the center of the secular universe, Harvard, where I’m doing a fellowship this semester at the Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center. The topic has come up more than it would have otherwise because of the conclave, but what people always say is, “But you’re lapsed, right?” At a dinner recently, the hostess followed that up with, “But you’re pro-choice, RIGHT?” Thought for a minute there I might not get dinner...

The Post also features syndicated columnists like Michael Gerson. And, of course, there is the terrific young New York Times conservative columnist Ross Douthat, who also authored the book Bad Religion: How we became a nation of heretics.

Why does this matter? This sort of diversity isn’t just important because of the creeping worldview bias, but also in terms of selection bias. For example, writing in USA Today, liberal commentator Kirsten Powers, who recently spoke with Jonathan Merritt about her faith, begins her latest column thusly:

Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven’t heard about these sickening accusations?

It’s not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. [USA Today]

As Powers notes, this story should be garnering more media attention, but it isn’t.

Powers’ faith no doubt informs her journalism, probably making it more likely that she will cover stories about abortion and human trafficking that some of her colleagues might not be as likely to explore.

I’ll close with something The Huffington Post’s senior political reporter Jon Ward recently told me: “[M]y identity is not based in how many bylines I have. It’s not based on how many times I’ve been on television or how many people see my face or know about me. Of course, writers are driven by ego. Of course, George Orwell said that. My identity, though, is, I’m a sinner saved by grace. That’s my identity.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #698]

Degraded Democracy: Has America Compromised Its Legitimacy?

Not long after the recent terrorist attacks, bricks came flying through the window of an Islamic bookstore in Alexandria, Virginia. Ugly, racist notes were attached.

The next day, fifteen bouquets of flowers arrived for the store's manager, a Palestinian immigrant. An anonymous well-wisher paid for a new window. Local ministers and a rabbi came to offer support.

We've seen the same loving response to hate all over the country. For every brick thrown, an avalanche of love has been poured out on our Muslim neighbors.

To many it's an illustration of how well America's experiment in democracy is working. We're showing the world that, by and large, citizens of different faiths and backgrounds can live together in harmony. The great ideological brawls of the past century are over and American ideals have triumphed over tyranny.

But, Princeton philosopher Robert George warns, if we're not careful, tyranny might still win out.

More than any other form of government, democracy defends the fundamental moral equality of citizens. In his new book, THE CLASH OF ORTHODOXIES, George reminds us that this moral equality is not automatic: It is achieved only when all submit to the moral law.

When the institutions of a democracy are manipulated in such a way that we lose the meaning of "right," they no longer can assure human dignity. And when this happens, George notes, democracy's institutions "become mechanisms of injustice and oppression, thus defying the moral law" to which they are subject.

Christianity is not alone in teaching this. People of all faiths and no faith believe that a nation's law must bow to universal standards of justice.

It's a tragic irony that democratic institutions can and do devolve into tools of oppression. America's history is pockmarked by court decisions that trampled fundamental human rights -- often in the name of protecting them. It happened 150 years ago, when the Supreme Court held that blacks were non-persons, and twenty-eight years ago, when the Supreme Court decreed that mothers could murder their unborn children. More recently, federal courts have tossed out laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide.

Through these decisions, the courts betrayed the principle of equal worth and dignity that forms the moral linchpin of democracy. As George puts it, democracies degenerate into tyrannies when their laws expose "the weakest and most vulnerable members of the community ... to private lethal violence or other forms of oppression."

Such laws cannot, and should not, bind the conscience of all citizens. Disobedience to an unjust law is obedience to God, Augustine argued.

Americans are justly proud of how we treat neighbors who don't share our faith. We're proud that our values are copied around the world. But the sobering truth is that our democracy is vulnerable whenever our institutions, especially the courts, ignore the moral law. If we want to keep our democracy, we must reassert the case for moral truth. ...

No democracy can survive unless it is willing to preserve the common good -- by protecting fundamental human rights.

For more information:

Robert George, THE CLASH OF ORTHODOXIES (Intercollegiate Studies Inst., 2001).

_________________________

*

Forgiving, Not Forgetting: Remembering the Mistakes of the Past

Ezra 4:3

On September 15, 1963, exactly forty years ago today, ugly racial hatred exploded in Birmingham, Alabama. The weekend after Birmingham's public schools were integrated (after a six-year fight), four Ku Klux Klansmen planted dynamite in Birmingham's Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. Four African-American girls — Denise McNair, 11, Carole Robertson, 14, Cynthia Wesley, 14, and Addie Mae Collins, 14 — died in the Sunday morning explosion.

“Their bodies were stacked up on top of each other like bales of hay from the crumbling ruins left by the dynamiting,” remembers a reporter.

“They were children,” reported the Birmingham World, “They were victims of cruel madness, ... vile bigotry and ... deadly hate.”

The church bombing was one of forty-one racially motivated bombings in Birmingham between 1947 and 1963. Known as “the city that was never too busy to hate,” Bombingham became its nickname.

Two more African-American children died that evening, when “all Birmingham waited with taut nerves ... for a possible major eruption of racial violence.” Two white youths killed Virgil Ware, 13, as he rode his bike. A white policeman shot and killed Johnnie Robinson, 16, when the teen threw a rock at a car carrying white passengers.

At Johnnie's funeral, the Reverend A. L. Woods said: “Not only are we here for the funeral of Johnnie Robinson, but I think we can say we are here for the funeral of Birmingham.”

Fortunately, Woods's words did not prove to be prophetic. The violent deaths of four girls suddenly opened the eyes of a city and a nation. The bombing became pivotal in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And Birmingham congregations, both black and white, came together to mourn the girls' deaths. More than eight thousand people and eight hundred clergy attended the funerals. The city's ministers of all races and denominations united. From their pulpits, they preached Christian love and denounced racial hatred. On each anniversary of the bombing, congregations have joined together to remember September 15, 1963. And they have been determined to change Birmingham's heart.

Today, the good news is that the city is thriving. It is a beautiful peace-loving city, where African-Americans teach at colleges and graduate schools, lead the city in its cutting-edge medical technology, and fill important leadership positions in every area of politics, industry, and business. Birmingham has even elected an African-American mayor.

The Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, begun in 1911, still provides an active ministry, and the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute teaches racial harmony. Hundreds flock through to see Martin Luther King's jail cell, photos of lynchings, and statues of attack dogs and fire hoses. They also see “Angels of Change” — a video tribute to four little girls who put a face on racial hatred and helped change a city.

Birmingham conquered racial hate and violence because black and white Christian congregations pulled together in unity, love, and hard work. They sought to heal the hurts of hate with the Gospel. And the good news is that if this can happen in Birmingham, Alabama — once a deeply segregated, violent steel town — it can happen anywhere.

FOR FURTHER READING:

• Learn more about the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. http://bcri.bham.al.us/

• “Killers of the Innocents,” Birmingham World, 18 September 1963.

• Arthur Osgood, “Racial Tension Mounts in Birmingham after Four Killed in Church Bombing,” The Montgomery Advertiser, 16 September 1963.

• Robert Gordon, “Birmingham Pays Homage to Slain Teen-Age Boys,” Birmingham World, 25 September 1963.

• Kevin Sack, “Ex-Klansman Is Found Guilty in '63 Bombing,” New York Times, 2 May 2001.

• “Convictions Upheld in 1963 Church Bombing,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 29 August 2003.

• Desmond Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness (Doubleday, 2000), 151.

• Tim Stafford, “Birmingham, 1963,” Books & Culture, July/August 2001.

• James C. Cobb, “No 'Closure',” Wall Street Journal, 13 May 2001.

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 030828, “King's Dream.” (Archived commentary; free registration required.)

• Dara Fisk-Ekanger, “The Day Racism Hit Home,” Boundless, 13 December 2000.

• “How a Former Klansman Rejected Racism and Came to Christ” — Rev. Thomas A. Tarrants, III, President of the C.S. Lewis Institute, gave this testimony at a recent Prison Fellowship banquet. He was a former Klansman who nearly died from multiple bullet wounds when he was arrested. In prison he came to Christ and now speaks out against racism and for the superiority of the Christian worldview.

____________

*

Fatal Assumptions

Plato once remarked that he was grateful to be born a Greek and not a barbarian, a free man and not a slave, a man and not a woman, and most of all, to have been born in the age of Socrates.

Do you feel, like I, a twinge of discomfort in hearing this? For his sentiment reveals two of our perennial struggles: to find a philosophy by which to live and to correct the prejudices with which we live. Yet, hasn't history taught us that we seldom learn from the past or pause to consider what we believe?

I was once asked to speak at a conference on ethics at a certain university I'll leave unnamed. I dared to present the bankruptcy of humanistic theories both rationally and practically and contrasted them with the biblical basis for ethics.

After the presentation, there was silence for a long while. Then one professor said to me, “All this theory sounds good but the real question is, how do I get my students to be ethical; to not cheat on their exams; to tell the truth?” I was thrilled at the question, for, in fact, that was the point of the whole talk. But I was not prepared for what followed.

Following the question and answer session, a student came up to me confronted with a real dilemma. Here's what she said, “I was asked to come to your lecture today by my professor. The expectation was that I would disagree with you and so present my paper. But after listening to your talk, I found myself agreeing with you and now have a serious problem. If I write in defense of your position I will probably be given a very low grade, if not failed. On the other hand, she said if I disagree with you I am sure to get a high grade. My problem is the challenge to tell the truth and risk failure.”

Rather puzzled, I looked at her and I said, “Did your professor come to the forum?” There was silence and then came the answer. “Yes,” rather softly. “Who was it?” I asked. “The one who asked you the question about getting away from the theory to the bottom line of how to get students to not cheat and to tell the truth.”

Do you believe that? I was dumbfounded.

G.K. Chesterton said it well: “What we need is a religion that is not only right where we are right, but right where we are wrong.” You see, God corrects us not because of appearances, but because of His character. Goodness points us not to theory but to the purpose of life. Listen again, not to the theory but to the very purpose of life. What God has joined together let no one put asunder.

__________

*

[Original illustration at this number duplicated material at HolwickID #18837]

The Last Acceptable Prejudice - Princeton's Double Standard

Like most schools, Princeton University has a strict code of conduct that demands respect for all members of the campus community. The code is rigidly enforced — except, that is, when it comes to one group: Christians. Bigotry against Christians, and particularly Catholics, is the last acceptable prejudice.

And that bigotry is on graphic display at Princeton’s Bernstein Gallery, housed in the Woodrow Wilson School. Hanging on the walls is a collection called “Ricanstructions” by New York artist Juan Sanchez. To call this art OFFENSIVE would be a spectacular understatement.

One piece depicts a torn image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Another features naked female torsos arranged in the shape of a cross. A third links together sacred Catholic devotional items under the title “Shackles of the AIDS Virus.”

After viewing the works, Catholic students protested to Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Wilson School. They explained why the art was so offensive — and asked her to remove it. After all, the art desecrates actual sacred objects like the cross. To their surprise, Slaughter acknowledged that she would probably not allow the school to sponsor art that desecrated, say, Muslim symbols. But instead of removing “Ricanstructions,” Slaughter held a forum to let all sides — including the artist — have their say in the matter.

Princeton student Matt O’Brien responded that Catholics are not suggesting that their beliefs ought to be free from criticism; they only want Catholic symbols to enjoy the same protection from abuse that all other campus groups expect.

Slaughter’s response? She was sorry the art had caused “pain” to Catholic students. Nonetheless, she said, she was committed to exhibiting art that had “educational value.” “Ricanstructions” was going to stay right where it was.

The exhibit has “educational value,” all right: It’s teaching students that tolerance and respect are worthy goals — except when it comes to Catholics or other Christians.

The art pieces in “Ricanstructions” represent those who hold to the Catholic faith as murderers — the ones responsible for deaths from AIDS. As Princeton Professor of Politics Robert George explains, “Like the ancient canard about Jews using the blood of Gentile children in the Passover meal, it is an outrageous allegation that people of the slandered faith, acting on the principles of the faith, are responsible for killing people.”

George is right. This is bigotry squared. Imagine, if you will, an exhibit that links together Islamic crescents and calls it the “Shackles of Terrorism,” or a collage of pink triangles entitled “Shackles of Sin,” or a Star of David interspersed with dollar signs named “Shackles of World Poverty.” There is absolutely no chance you would see “art” like this at Princeton or anywhere else. But Christians are fair game. Historian Peter Viereck once said that “anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals.”

If Princeton is serious about showing equal respect for all, Dean Slaughter should do one of two things: either apologize or explain why defaming Catholics is acceptable while an attack on anyone else is a conduct code violation.

Sick, Twisted People - How Hollywood Portrays Christians

Mark 13:13

In the recent film HANNIBAL, a character named Mason Verger has just one goal in life: to catch up with the cannibal who chewed off his face, and feed him to flesh-eating pigs. It’s a sick and twisted goal — and it may not surprise you to learn that Verger is the film’s only Christian character.

Just one more illustration of how Hollywood tends to treat followers of Christ.

Sadly, there’s no shortage of other recent examples. In the historical film QUILLS, about the Marquis de Sade, the vilest sexual behavior is performed by a Catholic priest; de Sade is portrayed as the persecuted victim of a puritanical society.

Another film, THE PLEDGE, portrays Christianity as a religion for killers. In a movie called THE CELL, a Christian upbringing CAUSES a character to become a serial killer.

Celluloid missionaries are almost as bad. In films like BLACK ROBE and AT PLAY IN THE FIELDS OF THE LORD, Christians bring, not salvation, but disease and death, slavery and hypocrisy.

As Christian screenwriter Brian Godawa notes in his book HOLLYWOOD WORLDVIEWS, in films like these, “Christianity does not merely lead to mental breakdown in [individuals]; it also leads to the breakdown of society.” Christians are portrayed as sick, twisted people who got that way through repressing their natural desires; their moral codes lead to intolerance, wife beating, and murder. He points to recent films like THE CRUCIBLE and CHOCOLAT as well.

About the only good thing you can say about these films, spiritually speaking, is that they reveal the fact that humans — whether they admit it or not — are deeply religious. We can’t help thinking about God and trying to come to terms with Him. As Godawa points out, elements of Christianity are often “deconstructed or reinterpreted through countervailing worldviews,” but significantly, they are not ignored. In fact, Godowa writes, films that attack or redefine God may be more honest than those that simply ignore Him. The filmmaker is “at least admitting [God] is an issue.” Ignoring Him “leaves the impression that He is ... irrelevant to our reality.” Martin Luther made a very similar point.

The good news is that every now and then, Hollywood gets religion right. A recent remake of LES MISÉRABLES offers a poignant picture of Christian grace, forgiveness, and redemption. And the film THE ADDICTION uses a vampire theme to explore the nature of evil and our need for repentance.

Parents ought to watch some of the better films with their kids, although they should check them out carefully before bringing them home. Not all films are suitable for all families. And when it comes to films that portray Christians as warped and wicked people — well, parents ought to learn about these films as well. That way they can help their kids — and their unbelieving friends — to see through them and to understand the worldviews are involved in films.

Native American Missionary Shares Her Story

Acts 1:8

Less than 4 percent of Native Americans in North America are being effectively reached with the Gospel, Alpha Goombi, a Southern Baptist missionary from Nebraska, said during the 2003 National Acteens Convention.

Goombi, a Native American, recalled a time in southwest Oklahoma as she was growing up that “I was not allowed to be a member of any of the churches -- including the Baptist churches -- in my hometown because of the color of my skin.”

“The only people that came out to evangelize were Mormons, and my mom would close the door and we would hide in the closet when we saw the Mormons coming because she was scared of them,” Goombi recounted to the audience of 6,500 teenage girls and their missions leaders. “But you know, when they brought bread and they brought flour and they brought sugar to us, we would open the door.”

But no one came out to tell them the true Gospel, Goombi said.

As she went through school, some of Goombi's teachers told her she would never amount to anything because she was an Indian and did not have the capacity to learn, she said.

“And when two of my uncles came back from the Vietnam War they began to sexually abuse all the little girls that were in our family, including me,” Goombi said. “So when I grew up, I had such hate and bitterness in my heart. And I can't tell you what hurt more -- the prejudice or the sexual abuse.”

At the age of 18, Goombi turned to alcohol, she said, and fell deeper into despair. But then she married a man from a good family and moved to Norman, Oklahoma, and attended the University of Oklahoma.

“And there was a missionary that someone sent, that the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering [funded], that [Woman's Missionary Union] prayed for, and he was a full-blooded Indian,” she told the Acteens. “And he came to our house week after week with a smile on his face.”

Goombi said she wondered why the missionary was smiling. There was no reason to smile, she thought, having attempted to commit suicide and being accustomed to partying on the weekends and doing drugs.

“[One day] I was screaming at my husband,” she said. “And, you know, when you're really into yourself, when you think you're the center of the universe, that's a destructive life. So I screamed at my husband as an excuse to go and get drunk, and I screamed, 'I don't want to be your wife,' and I screamed at my son, 'I don't want to be your mother.'“

Goombi said her son then looked up at her and asked with tears running down his face, “Momma, what did I do to you?”

“And at that moment, the prayers of one person, the going of one person and the giving of one person brought me to the end of myself,” she said with tears in her eyes. “I realized I needed a Savior, I needed to be saved, and I knew it was Jesus Christ.”

The missionary came to visit again, and Goombi and her family went with him to church at the little Indian mission in Norman, she said.

“I gave my heart to Jesus, and I never looked back,” Goombi said as the Acteens cheered.

When she heard the Great Commission to go to all people, she couldn't sit there any longer. She had a new life and new salvation, and God led her to the mission field in Nebraska. Now she and her husband serve at the Omaha Baptist Center, where they minister to people from all over the world including Sudanese, Koreans and Japanese. And because of her heritage, God led her to serve among Native Americans as well.

Goombi told the Acteens that North Americans are “the most over-evangelized people in the world, yet we are very unsuccessful at reaching Native Americans.”

Goombi asked the girls to pray that God will send more missionaries to Native Americans and that churches would open their doors to those in their own backyard -- not only the Native Americans but the poor whites, the poor blacks and the poor of every nation.

“You can make a difference in your church,” Goombi told the girls. “If your church is closed to sharing the Gospel, maybe you can be that difference that someone can make in the life of a little Indian girl like me.”

*

The Christmas Menorah

During the wee hours of Sunday morning, December 8, 1996, after the third night of Hanukkah, someone took a baseball bat and broke the front window of a house on the street with a lighted menorah in the window, and the criminals reached through the shattered glass and smashed the menorah.

The menorah is used to celebrate the eight-day Jewish Festival of Lights, also known as Hanukkah, which occurs around the same time as Christmas. As a nativity scene reminds Christians of their heritage and faith, so does a menorah for Jews.

The woman who lived in the vandalized house was no stranger to prejudice. As a child, she had come with her mother, a Holocaust survivor, and her father, to the United States to escape persecution in the Soviet Union. Now, as she viewed the smashed menorah, the familiar fear returned.

Lisa Keeling, a young mother who lived down the street, heard about the incident on returning from mass with her family. She was appalled. Newtown has about fifteen hundred families, representing many cultures and religions. Lisa had never heard of anyone being singled out because of faith or ethnicity. How would she feel if someone desecrated a crèche on her lawn she wondered. Unless everyone were free to practice religious beliefs, no one could be free.

Lisa had an idea. She said to her husband, “I’d like to put a menorah in our front window so that family will know they are not going through this alone. If the vandals come back, they’ll have to target us, too. What do you think?

Lisa’s husband didn’t hesitate. “Go for it,” he said.

Lisa soon ran into another neighbor, Margie Alexander, who had been as horrified as Lisa when she heard the news and was also eager to act.

Margie started driving from store to store, looking for menorahs, with Lisa calling all the likely sources and relaying the information to Margie on her car phone. Word got around, and several Christian neighbors dropped by, asking where to purchase a menorah. Margie and Lisa bought up all they could and distributed them just before sundown — time to light the next candle.

Then Lisa took down the Christmas lights in one of her windows and put the menorah there, all by itself. “I didn’t want there to be any doubt about the statement we were making,” she recalls.

That night, when the Jewish woman turned onto her street, she stopped in amazement. Greeting her was a sea of orange menorah lights, shining in silent solidarity from the windows of all eighteen Christian households on her block. Blinking back tears, she went home, replaced the broken bulbs in her own menorah and put it back in the window.

Margie and Lisa are hanging menorahs again this Christmas. “it’s become the most cherished part of my Christmas,” Margie says, “and it’s taught me a wonderful lesson: Just one little step in the right direction can make life better for everyone.”

________

*

Extreme Bias Makeover: When Prejudice Becomes A Disease

Is hate a disease? Some psychiatrists think so. This was the subject of a recent WASHINGTON POST article, titled “Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness.” The title suggests the ominous implications.

The POST explains, “Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.”

In short, several psychiatrists are now pushing for racists and people who suffer from “homophobia” to be labeled mentally ill.

Could such a label possibly be justified? Well, the POST tries to make the case by telling about a man who turned down a job because he feared a co-worker might be gay, and who would not go places where he thought he might run into a gay person. Now that was an extreme case. The man did indeed have a phobia that was interfering with his life, and probably needed help. The man's psychiatrist told the paper, “He felt under attack, he felt threatened.” Normally, that would be called paranoia. We wouldn't be developing some new mental illness.

Just think about where this could lead: In short order, we might begin to put people who strongly oppose homosexual behavior on the same level as people who suffer irrational fears of gays, and declare both people mentally ill. After all, the American Psychiatric Association says that homosexual behavior is normal. So to strongly oppose it would be irrational. It's a very short step from there to saying that this person is suffering from “pathological bias.”

Already, the California Department of Corrections is experimenting with drugs to eliminate prejudices. “We treat racism and homophobia as delusional disorders,” reported Shama Chaiken, the department's chief psychologist. A number of distinguished scientists agree that the “clinical experience informs us that racism may be a manifestation of the delusional process.” Sometimes that's true, as with a woman mentioned in the POST who was deathly afraid of Jewish people. But it's not true that racism or homophobia always signal mental disorder. And if we do not make that crucial distinction, we are asking for big trouble.

It may sound extreme, but this is the beginning of a process that has long been popular with tyrants. In the Soviet Union, Christians were sent by the hundreds of thousands to mental institutions. The state was officially atheist, so if you believe that there was a God, you were insane. And it's still a wonderful tool for oppressors in places like China and North Korea.

There's another side to this. As a psychiatrist told the WASHINGTON POST, if we began to call bias a mental illness, it would let criminals off the hook for any behavior. It will take a few years, of course, to go all through the medical and clinical analyses and deliberations of the American Psychiatric Association.

But if the day should come that opposition to homosexual conduct is labeled homophobia, and homophobia labeled delusional, then it is a very short step to saying that belief in the Bible, which labels that conduct sinful, is also a mental disorder.

Frightening? Indeed. Impossible? I'm afraid not.

________

*

America Hates Atheists

At least 9 million of them live in the United States, mostly trying to avoid the wrath of neighbors, colleagues and relatives. But they do not pray for help, for they are America’s atheists – the most hated people in the country.

In a new study by University of Minnesota sociologists, more than 2,000 people were asked which of their fellow citizens lacked the proper “vision of American society.”

More than blacks or gays or immigrants or lesbians or even Muslims, atheists are viewed as the least American, according to the survey. And those without a god are the last people most folks would want their children to marry.

“Atheists, who account for about 3% of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, the study's lead researcher.

Most studies combine atheists and agnostics for a total of 12%, meaning some 36 million Americans – more than one in 10 – either don't believe in a god or couldn’t care less about the whole subject. A survey of 50,000 adults in 2001 showed that 14% of Americans “identify with no religion,” nearly doubling from just 8% in 1990. At this rate, by the year 2030 Christians and other religious people will be a minority and the last American god-worshippers will be buried by 2050 ... just 44 years from today!

But for the time being, atheists are weak in number and openly despised.

Atheists don't demand anything, they don't preach or riot, they have no real organization and they are completely unelectable. Nonetheless, Americans don't trust them.

“It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy – and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell.

Not surprisingly, people who haven’t had much of a life – the majority of Americans – were the most likely to fear atheists. But those who live on the coasts, have a decent education and know a wide variety of people were the ones who didn’t stay up nights worrying about the godless.

It Burnt Out All My Prejudices

On the Saturday night when Chicago was destroyed, I was preaching in Farwell Hall. We had an after-meeting, and while the bells were ringing the alarm of fire, we were singing that verse - Today the Savior calls; For refuge fly; The storm of vengeance falls, And death is nigh.

Many of the young men present, who sung that hymn, were burned to death before morning - a thousand people lost their lives that night. It seemed to me that fire burnt out all my prejudices and dislikes, and I love the whole world.

-- D. L. Moody

Why Jesus Was Born In A Stable

Luke 2:7

It was the winter of 1926, an age where narrow-mindedness and bigotry still had power in many places. A woman from Chicago named Thelma Goldstein decided to go to Florida for her first real vacation. She was not familiar with the area, and she unknowingly drove to a restricted hotel in North Miami.

“Excuse me,” she said to the man at the desk. “My name is Mrs. Goldstein, and I’d like a small room for two weeks.”

“I’m awfully sorry,” he replied, “but all of our rooms are occupied.”

Just then, she noticed a man checked out at the counter next to them. “What luck,” said Mrs. Goldstein. “Now there’s a room.”

“Not so fast, Madam. I’m sorry, but this hotel is restricted. No Jews allowed.”

“Jewish?” she said, “Who’s Jewish? I happen to be Catholic.”

The man at the desk said, “I find that hard to believe. Let me ask you, who was the Son of God?”

“Jesus, Son of Mary.”

“Where was he born?”

“In a stable.”

The man pressed on, “And why was he born in a stable?”

With her eyes flashing, she said, “Because a schmuck like you wouldn’t let a Jew rent a room in his hotel!”

Blocking the Gateway To Knowledge: Professorial Bias Against Evangelicals

Last weekend, the WASHINGTON POST reported on a new survey by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research. The survey found that “53 percent of its sample of 1,200 college and university faculty members said they have ‘unfavorable’ feelings toward evangelical Christians.” That’s far higher than the unfavorable ratings for any other religious group — the next highest was Mormons at 33 percent, followed by Muslims at 22 percent.

The American Association of University Professors tries to explain away the statistic as a result of how professors feel about Christian political engagement or Christian views on science. But as pollster Gary Tobin counters, “If a majority of faculty said they did not feel warmly about Muslims or Jews or Latinos or African Americans, there would be an outcry.... No one would say, ‘The reason they feel this way is because they don’t like the politics of blacks or the politics of Jews.”

Now I need to stress that I’m not crying “persecution.” When Christians in some countries are being killed for their faith, we should thank God every day that we can exercise our freedom of religion. Besides, as my colleague Roberto Rivera points out on our blog, THE POINT, it was Jesus Himself who told us, “Blessed are you when they insult you. . .because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.”

So there’s not much surprising here. But it’s still a valid concern. Christian college students have a right to the same respect and consideration from their professors as every other student, and when the professor judges them solely on the basis of their religion, it can mean serious consequences for their education and future job prospects. Much less what it says about the entire university system.

The POST cites a Missouri State University student who, when she wouldn’t complete an assignment in support of same-sex adoptions, “was hauled before a faculty panel on a charge of discriminating against gays.” The student filed suit and the university settled. But not all cases end this well. And what about Christians trying to keep their jobs as professors?

But the problem goes beyond how individuals are treated within the system. Colleges and universities play an enormous role in shaping the thinking of every generation, and professors know it.

Is it any wonder, then, that our universities are producing generations of people who consider Christianity anti-intellectual at best, and oppressive at worst? And remember, the influence of our universities goes way beyond the campus gates and the classroom. The very same professors who distrust evangelical Christianity are publishing enormously influential reports, studies, and books that make headlines, influence political leaders, and shape our culture in profound ways.

So what are we as Christians do? First, prepare our young people for what lies ahead. Visit our website, BreakPoint.org, for Christian worldview materials that can help — especially if you have high school teens, our curriculum called REWIRED. Second, we need to encourage more Christians to pursue academic careers. Third, we need not be discouraged. We know that Truth will win out — even in the halls of academia.

________

Preconceived Notions

2 Samuel 22:29

A policeman tells a man with a pickup truck full of penguins, “That’s illegal. Take them to the zoo immediately.” The next day, the officer sees the guy still driving with the truck full of penguins — and they’re all wearing sun glasses. He pulls the guy over and demands: “I thought I told you to take these penguins to the zoo?” The reply, “I did — today I’m taking them to the beach!” A difference in conception of what was meant!

That’s exactly why a Baptist and a Presbyterian can read the same verse of Scripture and come away with a different understanding of what was said. It’s a difference in conception sometimes colored by our upbringing, our previous studies and sometimes just under- standing it the way we want to or the way someone told us it should be.

Do yourself a favor. The next time you sit down to read your Bible, put aside every preconceived notion you’ve had and try to read that Scripture as though it is the first time you’ve ever read it. Say to yourself, “What is God really trying to tell me?” Remember, an open mind can be filled — a closed one can’t. Give God a chance.

2 Samuel 22:29 (niv), “You are my lamp, O Lord; the Lord turns my darkness into light.” — if you’ll let Him.

A New Generation of Untouchables: Jena and the Justice System

The case of the Jena 6 has forced us to ask once again if our justice system is color blind in America. Thousands gathered in that small town on September 20 because they are convinced that African-Americans are unfairly treated in the criminal justice system.

To be honest, it’s hard to discern right now exactly what happened in Jena. But don’t miss the point here: It is not hard to discern the incredibly disproportionate rate of African-Americans behind bars in America.

The thousands who converged on Jena were most outraged at the prosecutor’s decision to charge six African-American kids with attempted murder in connection with a beating of a white student. In their opinion, the fact that the victim left the hospital after two hours proved that the charges were excessive.

Those suspicions were reinforced by reports that the prosecutor had previously told other African-American students that he “could end [their] lives with the stroke of a pen.”

For many African-Americans, this is not an idle threat — it is reality. Although only 13 percent of the population, African-Americans make up nearly half of our prison population. The incarceration rate for Blacks is nearly six times that of Whites. As social scientist Glenn Loury points out, “a black male resident of the state of California is more likely to go to a state prison than a state college.”

And this disparity is not limited to, or even greatest in, the South: The disparities in Iowa and New Jersey, for example, are nearly three times greater than in Louisiana.

What drives much of this disparity is the War on Drugs: In 1975, Blacks were twice as likely as Whites to be arrested for drug offenses — by 1989, four times as likely. Yet there is no evidence that Blacks are more likely than Whites to use illegal drugs — in fact, the opposite is true.

These differences and other factors are having a devastating effect in the African-American community in ways that many outside that community do not begin to comprehend. It is devastating an entire generation of families. If the present trends continue, for every Black male born today, one out of three will be behind bars in their lifetime.

As criminologist Jeffrey Fagan and his colleagues put it, “the declining economic fortunes of former inmates [creates] ... strains on families of prisoners that weaken the family’s ability to supervise children ... “ As Loury put it, these children are then “likely to join a new generation of untouchables” and perpetuate the tragic cycle.

This impact and the disparities that cause it are issues that should concern every Christian. Not simply because it is unjust that one group of people should be punished in such a disproportionate manner — that’s bad enough — but it should also concern us because it undermines confidence in the rule of law. It makes it easier for people to suspect the worst in places like Jena.

The Christian author Philip Yancey recently said it is easy to quote Amos — let justice roll down like a mighty river. It is much harder to build an irrigation system. Nevertheless, the hard work of justice in America is something that every Christian, Black and White, should tackle together.

________

Playing Favorites

James 2:1

Sermon in Book of James series, #6. James 2:1-9

PLAYING FAVORITES

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

I. The family favorite.

A. All parents are partial among their children, though they don't

B. Favoritism causes divisions.

II. Pre-judging others.

A. All of us are prejudiced:

B. Even the Bible reflects prejudices.

C. Many are fighting prejudice.

D. When God remakes us, is there any room for prejudice?

III. God's standards or the world's?

A. By favoring some over others, the world's standards are used.

B. By favoring some, God is dishonored.

IV. Christian love is the moral argument against favoritism.

A. Love neighbor as self. Positive counterpart to above.

B. The story of the Good Samaritan. Luke 10:25

V. Honor everyone.

A. Don't treat people the same - we must treat them great!

B. God is "no respector of persons."

The Witness of Koinonia Farm

The late Clarence Jordan was a remarkable witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jordan was the founder of the Koinonia Farm in Americus, Georgia, an organization probably best known for its mail order pecan business.

What is less known is the struggle its founder and fledgling community underwent beginning back in the 1940’s. Jordan was born and reared in rural Georgia and in the Southern Baptist tradition, a tradition he came to view as tied too closely to Southern culture. He eventually rejected it and embraced instead the more anti-cultural, Christ-transcending and Christ-transforming aspects of the Gospel.

He took seriously its mandate that in the church all are equal: young and old, black and white, male and female, rich and poor, learned and unlearned. The very thrust of Christianity, for Jordan, was Christ incarnate in koinonia, the Greek word for fellowship or hospitality, which he defined as the redeemed imitating Christ within the redeemed community. For Clarence, imitatio Christi really meant going the second mile, giving the extra coat, settling matters outside the law and living peaceably with all.

One of Clarence’s most widely known contributions was his unique “Cotton Patch” version of the New Testament Scriptures. In his translation, he brought the biblical characters home and set them in the towns, on the roads, and between the cotton and peanut rows of southern Georgia.

In his introduction to Luke and Acts, Clarence states: “Jesus has been so zealously worshipped, his deity so vehemently affirmed, his halo so brightly illumined, and his cross so beautifully polished that in the minds of many he no longer exists as a man. He has become an exquisite celestial being who momentarily and mistakenly lapsed into a painful involvement in the human scene, and then quite properly returned to his heavenly habitat. By thus glorifying him we more effectively rid ourselves of him than did those who tried to do so by crudely crucifying him.”

In the end, Jordan’s dedication to take seriously Jesus’ humanity proved costly. Over the years, the Koinonia Farm was so harassed by shootings, burnings, bombings and beatings that little could be produced and marketed. A boycott against the farm was so effective that few seeds and little fertilizer or fuel could be purchased. No sales could be made, so that thousands of chickens had to be slaughtered wastefully. The farm’s roadside store, after being fired upon and dynamited, was burned to the ground, and more than 300 of the pecan trees chopped down. In fact, it was these events that eventually led to the mail order business in 1957, originally advertised with the slogan, “Help us ship the nuts out of Georgia.”

All this property damage pales in comparison to the attempts on the lives of those at Koinonia. On May 25, 1957, members of the Sumter County Chamber of Commerce called upon the community, begging them to leave the county. The Ku Klux Klan made it known that he and his kind were not welcome. It is therefore understandable that Jordan could preach in his memorable sermon, The Substance of Faith: “God is not in his heaven with all well on the earth. He is on this earth, and all hell’s broken loose.”

Earlier, in 1950, Jordan and his community had been excommunicated from Rehobeth Baptist Church, where his wife taught Sunday school and where Clarence had sung in the choir and occasionally preached. Ironically, “Rehobeth” actually means “The Lord has made room for us.” But Rehobeth Baptist Church had no room for a man who, among other things, dared to dine with African Americans and who, as early as the 1940’s, had led them in Bible study.

At one point, Jordan reflected on his life and on the demands of the Gospel. It was the gospel, and its call to imitate Christ, he said, that had forced him to depart even from the ways of his own family. He noted that his father had been a segregationist, as had been his father before him, and his father before that. To follow the way of his family, in light of Jesus Christ, was to betray the One who came to offer a superior way. And it was this same impulse that drove Jordan to go against his fellow townspeople and their values - and against a racist Southern culture in general.

Jordan reminded his culture-conforming brothers and sisters that the Christian who intends to live like Christ must not only contend with the world, but even with the compromised church itself. The Christian life, he assured his listeners, is preparation for the future of all people on earth, though it may seem, for the moment, no more than a far-fetched island in the midst of oceans of dominating countercultures.

The Paradox At the Heart of Black Christianity

There is a paradox at the heart of black Christianity in America: the new religion of enslaved Africans was also the old religion of the American enslavers. In abolitionist tracts and slave narratives, black writers struggled to find a way to distinguish between righteous Christianity and its monstrous opposite.

Frederick Douglass strongly attacked the theology of slaveholding America:

Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of

Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference – so wide,

that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity

to reject the other as bad, corrupt and wicked.

This tension continues in black theology, as is shown in the travails of Barak Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.

Does Your Name Predict Success?

Mark 5:9

You might be well versed in the origin and meaning of your name, but do you know how your name is viewed by others? A researcher in the United Kingdom unveiled findings from an experiment in which 7,000 people were given a list of common male and female names and asked which they considered to be lucky, attractive and successful. The results indicate that people seem to be influenced by stereotypes when it comes to assigning meaning to names. Names like James and Elizabeth rated high for success while Lisa and Brian did not. Why? Experts believe that names hold historical significance: Elizabeth, a royal name, may connote a sense of power, while another name may be associated with defeat or disaster.

The jury is still out on whether having a name that rates high on the success scale will give you an advantage professionally, but it’s something to consider when giving a child a more unusual name, like those celebrities often choose. Keep in mind, however, that these name rankings might have an obvious British bias to them.

Here’s a look at how names in the survey stacked up in order:

MOST SUCCESSFUL: James, Elizabeth, Caroline, Richard, Michael, Helen, Olivia, William, Andrew and Amanda

LEAST SUCCESSFUL: Brian, Lisa, Ryan, Lucy, Stephen, Katie, Emily, Lewis, Julie and Ian

MOST LUCKY: Jack, Lucy, Katie, Christ, Lisa, Sophie, Ryan, Peter, James, Emma

LEAST LUCKY: Helen, Elizabeth, John, Ann, Thomas, Caroline, Karen, Jane, Richard, William

MOST ATTRACTIVE: Sophie, Ryan, James, Rachel, Olivia, Karen, Katie, Jack, Sarah, Chris

LEAST ATTRACTIVE: Ann, Jane, George, Thomas, Peter, Helen, John, Elizabeth, Richard, Caroline

Rick Warren: Seven Different Attitudes On Racism

Ezra 4:3

Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Southern California addressed racism in his sermon in the wake of the deadly ambush of police officers following the shooting deaths of African Americans, describing seven attitudes to racism and identifying the one which Christians should have.

“Our nation is desperate for healing ... and the Church cannot be silent,” Warren told the congregation in a recent sermon he delivered after a shooting in Baton Rouge, Louisiana left three police officers dead.

The megachurch pastor quoted Titus 2:11: “God has revealed his grace to save the whole human race.”

God has never made a person He doesn’t love, Warren stressed. “Race was God’s idea,” he said. “Racial reconciliation is at the heart of the Gospel.”

How you and I treat other people matters deeply to God, he added, quoting 2 Chronicles 19:7, “ ... the Lord our God does not tolerate perverted justice, partiality, or the taking of bribes.”

The word for “justice” and “righteousness” is the same in the Bible, he explained, and acknowledged, “There is still injustice against black Americans ... and other minority groups.”

Partiality is an old English word for racism and prejudice, the pastor said. This means treating one group of people better than another group, he explained, adding that the Church must not be silent when racism is practiced.

He said there are seven different attitudes towards racism.

Warren defined a “racist,” the worst of all, as someone who “hates another race or bullies another race or discriminates against another race.”

There are also “bigots,” just slightly better than the racists, the pastor said, defining a racist as someone who “believes stereotypes about a particular race, and belittles other people.”

And then there is an “avoider,” Warren continued. “An avoider is somebody who ... is uncomfortable around people who aren’t like” him, he explains.

Then, there are people who are “insensitive,” the pastor added, explaining that such persons are insensitive to what hurts others.

There are also those who are “apathetic,” Warren went on to say. And they are people who just don’t care about racism.

But a follower of Jesus Christ has to care, the pastor underlined.

Then, looking at the positive side, Warren said there are those, who are “sensitive.” They are “kind and inclusive,” he explained. But this attitude is not the best, he added.

God wants us to be a “reconciler,” someone who is an “active bridge builder,” and reflects biblical values.

The Bible says that if you are a Christian, you must be a reconciler, Warren told the congregation. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God,” he quoted Matthew 5:9.

Warren also said there are four reasons why God hates prejudice. One, racial prejudice questions God’s creation. Two, racial prejudice is a sign of ignorance. Three, racial prejudice disobeys the Great Commandment. Four, racial prejudice is a serious sin.

“Racism is the most common sin in the world,” said Warren, who has traveled around the world. However, law is not the solution as it cannot change hearts, he clarified. People can change with the Gospel, and therefore the Church has to play its role, he added.

There are three steps Christians can take to deal with racism, Warren continued.

One, “we must see people as God does,” he said, quoting 1 Samuel 16:7, “The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”

Two, we must change the way we listen, by listening to everyone with respect, he added. Prejudice is a result of our failure to listen to people, he explained.

Three, he concluded, we must love everybody the way Jesus does, quoting John 15:12, where Jesus says, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.”

Brave and Important?: Art Designed To Offend

John 15:8

Late in 2010, the National Portrait Gallery hosted an exhibit entitled “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture.” Cutting through the euphemistic title, the Washington Post said the exhibit “surveys how same-sex love has been portrayed in art.”

As part of the exhibit, the Portrait Gallery, which receives federal funds, displayed a video entitled “Fire in my belly” by the late artist and AIDS activist David Wojnarowicz. Part of the video depicted a crucifix-that is, Jesus on the Cross-with ants crawling all over it.

Well, the Catholic League and several conservative members of Congress were none too pleased that U.S. government funds were in part responsible such an outrageously offensive display-and let the Portrait Gallery know it.

Portrait Gallery Director Martin Sullivan saw the wisdom of removing the video. Sullivan told the Washington Post that the video had become a distraction. “We don’t want to shy away from anything that is controversial, but we want to focus on the museum’s and this show’s strengths.” So the video was taken off display.

Good. Well, predictably, the arts community went nuts, crying “censorship,” and “insanity,” and accused the Portrait Gallery of “caving in” by disrupting such a “brave and important” exhibit.

Important? Well, if ridiculing the death of Christ and offending the faith of billions is important, then I guess this was important.

Brave? Hardly. The easiest thing an artist or playwright or movie producer can do these days in the West is mock Christianity and our God.

You want bravery? How about a museum displaying a similar video depicting Mohammad? Now that would be brave, on top of offensive and foolish.

The security costs for protecting the museum from outraged Muslims would be huge. And no artist would dare be so quote un-quote “brave” as to put his name on a piece of art that mocked Islam’s prophet.

Have you heard recently from the young woman who wanted to start “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day?” Of course not. She’s changed her name and gone into hiding. It’s a shame the art critics wouldn’t stand up for her right to be bold and important.

Or how do you think a museum’s patrons would react to a video of ants crawling all over a dead gay activist? They’d be furious. And they’d be right to be furious.

Of course this is a free society. We believe in free speech. We believe in artistic freedom. But we don’t believe the government has any business supporting those museums or media that display material patently designed to offend Christians or anyone else.

But if you’re a big fan of offensive art, I’ve got good news for you. The Modern Museum of Art in New York-to the sound of hosannas and huzzahs-has boldly and bravely purchased the video and will have it on display. Next time you’re in the Big Apple, you’re free to stop by and take a look.

But you’ll have to pay the museum’s $20 entrance fee yourself-no federal funds, I’m glad to say. And the only thing you’ll offend is your own sense of good taste and propriety.

________

Why Same-Sex Marriage Makes Sense To So Many

Acts 17:19

Same-sex marriage is not an idea that emerged from a vacuum. The project of normalizing homosexuality has deep roots and ideological momentum.

________

Why does same-sex marriage make sense to so many people? The momentum toward the full legalization of same-sex marriage seems to intensify with every passing month — or even faster. The moral divide in this nation is now seen most clearly in the distance between those for whom marriage is exclusively heterosexual and thus a settled issue and, on the other hand, those who honestly see the legalization of same-sex marriage as a moral mandate required by justice.

Given the venerable status of marriage and its universally established heterosexual character — at least until very recently — the burden of argument falls on the need to explain how such a movement for a moral revolution gained credibility, cultural mass, and momentum. How did this happen?

A culture does not consist only of ideas and ideologies, but no culture exists without them. Given the complexity of any culture, a comprehensive map of these ideas, moral intuitions, and philosophies is impossible to create. Nevertheless, some patterns are clear enough. We can trace the acceptance of same-sex marriage to at least three major ideas that have been shaping the modern mind for some time — and are held to some extent by both social liberals and conservatives.

One of the ideological engines of our social revolution is the idea that history reveals a progressive liberation of peoples who have suffered oppression. In this view of history, one prejudice after another has fallen as we have come to terms with the demands of justice. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

In other words, history reveals an inevitable, though tortuously long, arc toward justice and fairness. Over the course of history, innumerable superstitions and prejudices have been discarded. Slavery, once considered a social and economic necessity on both sides of the Atlantic, was overcome in Western democracies. Women demanded and were granted the right to vote. The world of Jim Crow gave way to the world of racial integration and civil rights. The mentally disabled are no longer put away in asylums. The Irish and Italians, once oppressed as the unwashed and unwanted immigrants of the Gilded Age, have risen to prominence in every arena of American life. America has elected its first African-American President. History marches on.

For obvious reasons, the movement to normalize homosexuality attached itself to this idea of historical progress. This was a natural and inevitable development, and those who formed the strategy for this movement used the most powerful tools at their disposal. The progressivist vision of history was there for the taking, and the gay rights movement took it up with enthusiasm.

Americans are naturally drawn to this understanding of history. It plays to our belief that our generation is in some way morally superior to the generations who preceded us. Liberals feast on this understanding of history and make it their main argument in any number of debates. But conservatives are shaped by this narrative, as well. Conservatives accept the undeniable fact that history, both long and short, tells a story that we should celebrate at countless turns.

But the problem with the progressivist understanding of history is that it cannot stand alone. It cannot be the only narrative. There has to become means of identifying what is truly a manifestation of oppression and what is a structure necessary for human flourishing. If the only story we have is the narrative of liberation from oppression, then, as Karl Marx understood, all that remains is an unstoppable revolution that dissolves all bonds of relationship, kinship, tradition, and moral order. Should children be liberated from the authority of their parents? Should all prisoners be liberated from their cells? Should human beings be liberated from the obligations of family and kinship?

The progressivist understanding of history must be checked by a recognition that liberation from oppression is not the only true and compelling narrative. The affirmation and preservation of moral obligations and commitments must be the companion narrative. But, in order to understand why so many among us see something as morally revolutionary and socially subversive as same-sex marriage to be something to demand and champion, consider the fact that many of our friends and neighbors see same-sex marriage as only the next logical step in overcoming prejudice and discrimination. It is the only story they know, and it is powerful.

A Radical Individualism

Paired with the progressivist understanding of history is a vision of individualism that is virtually unprecedented in human experience. An affirmation of the importance of the individual is written into the fabric of modern thought. Our understanding of human rights, of individual liberty, and of personal responsibility are central to the American self-consciousness. Add to this the fact that the rise of the therapeutic worldview has recast human experience as a continuous project of individual self-discovery and self-definition.

But, if individualism was central to the American experience from the beginning, the current form of this idea is far more radical than previous generations could imagine. The current form of individualism includes the claim that we can define ourselves even in terms of gender and sex. This individualism is titanic in its reach, producing what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton once described as the “Protean Man.” We demand the total right to define ourselves.

Once again, we must recognize that the opponents of same-sex marriage have also been drinking heavily at the springs that feed this powerful idea. Many conservatives have bought into their own form of expressive individualism, taking refuge in the structures of social order only when convenient, bending moral codes to our own individualistic demands, forfeiting moral obligations when they conflict with our favorite project — ourselves.

The control on the destructive force of expressive individualism is the reality of moral obligation and the goodness of true self-knowledge. As Christians know — and must always remember — we are known before we ever emerge to know. Our Creator knew us before we even came to be, and he established our identity before we came to know ourselves. True happiness can come only by embracing with gratitude the identity we are given by the Creator. This idea — now reaching even to sex and gender — is anathema to the modern mind.

The Claim of Moral Autonomy

Throughout most of human history, moral principles were considered to be objectively true and inviolate. The universe was understood to be ruled by a moral law established by a divine Lawgiver and Judge. That understanding has given way to the belief that most, if not all, moral principles are the products of social construction — we make them up as we go along.

While most criticisms of moral relativism are directed at individual conduct, on the larger scale, the entire society is increasingly convinced that moral principles must give way to new understandings, findings, and insights. When this idea is added to the progressivist understanding of history and the radical form of modern individualism, we have a recipe for moral revolution.

And, as with the other ideological factors we have considered, this one is also affirmed, to some degree, by both liberals and conservatives. There can be no doubt that some understandings of moral principle were indeed shaped by prejudice and ignorance, leading to great human suffering. Laws against interracial marriage were prime examples of this prejudice, and there are many others. Fear of minorities, including homosexuals, has led to scapegoating and hatred, cloaked in the language of moral rectitude. These things must give way to moral progress and be denounced with moral fervor.

But, once again, not all moral principles are examples of oppression. To the contrary, human life is only possible within the context of enduring moral laws and principles that liberate all human beings to their true humanity. This is where those who support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it face each other across a huge gulf of understanding. One side sees a moral mandate to liberate marriage from its heterosexual limitation. The other side sees natural marriage as a liberating, God-given institution for human flourishing. There is precious little shared ground in this debate.

Same-sex marriage is not an idea that emerged from a vacuum. The project of normalizing homosexuality has deep roots and ideological momentum. The elites, the entertainment culture, the news media, and the educational establishment celebrate all three of these ideas as central to the modern experience and as ideological propulsion into a better future.

So, when we wonder how it came to be that so many among us now favor same-sex marriage, we must remember that, to some extent or another, virtually all of us have embraced the ideas that make such a moral revolution thinkable. And ideas, as Richard Weaver famously reminded us, have consequences.

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.

________

They Refused To Move

Mark 2:24

The Smithsonian Institute has preserved a short section of a Greensboro, North Carolina, Woolworth’s lunch counter. If you are as old as I am, you know why. One of my vivid memories as a kid was watching civil rights protests on TV.

This lunch counter recalls one of the earliest episodes. On February 1, 1960, four black college students sat at that counter and ordered food. They were denied - they were sitting in the “Whites Only” section. They knew they were breaking the rules, but they refused to move.

One of them, Franklin McCain, noticed a little old white lady nearby who eyed him very suspiciously. Eventually, she finished her doughnut and coffee. And she walked behind McCain - and put her hand on his shoulder. She said in a very calm voice, “Boys, I am so proud of you. I only regret that you didn’t do this 10 years ago.”

They stayed at that counter until the store closed. The next day, 15 other students joined them. On the third day there was 300. Later, 1,000. It took six months of protest, but that Woolworth lunch counter was eventually desegregated.

________

Adapted from "The Woolworth Sit-In That Launched a Movement," by Michele Norris, National Public Radio, February 01, 2008, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18615556

Are Christians Slow To Get It Right?

John 8:7

After World Vision reversed its policy on allowing same-sex married Christians to be employees, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald newspaper wrote an article criticizing them and the Evangelical movement in general.

World Vision is a huge Evangelical relief agency. They help with famines and disasters around the world. They only hire people who claim to be Christian. They are an equal-opportunity employer, but as a faith-based mission they are allowed to disqualify people who don’t agree with their statement of faith.

On March 24, World Vision announced it would no longer bar Christians in same-sex marriages from working there. Two days later, almost 5,000 sponsors abandoned World Vision. Their director reversed the new policy, saying it was a “bad decision” but made from “the right motivations.”

Leonard Pitts predicts the director will change his tune in ten years. Because eleven years ago this same director changed his view toward AIDS. He admitted that Christians perceived AIDS as a disease of homosexuals and drug users and so, “had less compassion for the victims.”

To Leonard Pitts, this didn’t sound like people who claimed to follow a first-century rabbi who said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened ...” Pitts concludes:

“On issues where it should take the lead, where it should be advocating for human dignity, the great body of Christendom always seems to bring up the rear, arriving decades late to the place the rest of the nation has already reached.”

He says it is not just on homosexuality or AIDS, but feminism and Civil Rights. Christians are slow to get it right.

Mr. Pitts attributes it to the American equation of Christianity with conservatism. He says we shrink the gospel of Christ to a narrow and exclusionary faith of narrow and exclusionary concerns: we criminalize abortions, demonize homosexuals and that’s pretty much it. All we do is condemn. Yet in 20 years we will agree with everyone else. We should be first, but we are always last.

Is he right?

________

Adapted by David Holwick from the article "Christianity Slow To Get It Right," Leonard Pitts, April 6, 2014.

A White Guy With A Razor?

John 1:46

One thing we must see about ourselves is that we are never neutral when we look at evidence. We never deal with pure facts. We always look at facts through our own grid, our own paradigm, through our own biases. That is why two people can see the same facts and come to different conclusions.

For example, in the 1940’s Harvard psychologists Gordon Allport and Leo Postman conducted a study on rumors with a group of white men. They showed the first white man a picture and he was to describe the picture to the next man, who would describe it to the next, and so on, until it made it around the circle. The picture showed a scene on a subway with a black man in a three-piece suit being threatened by a white man with a razor.

However, by the time the story made it around the circle, the white man was in the suit and the black man was holding the razor. Why? Because, at that time in white America, and probably today, our bias is to believe that the white man wears the suit and the black man holds the razor. The biases of those in the group affected the way they saw “the facts.” Your assumptions, what you believe, determine what you see.

Why Do So Many Liberals Despise Christianity?

Job 42:7

Liberals increasingly want to enforce a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. And they see alternative visions of the good as increasingly intolerable.

________

Liberalism seems to have an irrational animus against Christianity. Consider these two stories highlighted in the last week by conservative Christian blogger Rod Dreher.

Item 1: In a widely discussed essay in Slate, author Brian Palmer writes about the prevalence of missionary doctors and nurses in Africa and their crucial role in treating those suffering from Ebola. Palmer tries to be fair-minded, but he nonetheless expresses “ambivalence,” “suspicion,” and “visceral discomfort” about the fact that these men and women are motivated to make “long-term commitments to address the health problems of poor Africans,” to “risk their lives,” and to accept poor compensation (and sometimes none at all) because of their Christian faith.

The question is why he considers this a problem.

Palmer mentions a lack of data and an absence of regulatory oversight. But he’s honest enough to admit that these aren’t the real reasons for his concern. The real reason is that he doesn’t believe that missionaries are capable “of separating their religious work from their medical work,” even when they vow not to proselytize their patients. And that, in his view, is unacceptable — apparently because he’s an atheist and religion creeps him out. As he puts it, rather wanly, “It’s great that these people are doing God’s work, but do they have to talk about Him so much?”

That overriding distaste for religion leads Palmer to propose a radical corollary to the classical liberal ideal of a separation between church and state — one that goes far beyond politics, narrowly construed. Palmer thinks it’s necessary to uphold a separation of “religion and health care.”

Item 2: Gordon College, a small Christian school north of Boston, is facing the possibility of having its accreditation revoked by the higher education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, according to an article in the Boston Business Journal. Since accreditation determines a school’s eligibility to participate in federal and state financial aid programs, and the eligibility of its students to be accepted into graduate programs and to meet requirements for professional licensure, revoking a school’s accreditation is a big deal — and can even be a death sentence.

What has Gordon College done to jeopardize its accreditation? It has chosen to enforce a “life and conduct statement” that forbids “homosexual practice” on campus.

Now, one could imagine a situation in which such a statement might legitimately run afoul of an accreditation board or even anti-discrimination statutes and regulations — if, for example, it stated that being gay is a sign of innate depravity and that students who feel same-sex attraction should be subject to punishment for having such desires.

But that isn’t the case here. At all. In accordance with traditional Christian teaching, Gordon College bans all sexual relationships outside of marriage, gay or straight, and it goes out of its way to say that its structures against homosexual acts apply only to behavior and not to same-sex desires or orientation.

The accreditation board is not so much objecting to the college’s treatment of gays as it is rejecting the legitimacy of its devoutly Christian sexual beliefs.

The anti-missionary article and the story of Gordon College’s troubles are both examples (among many others) of contemporary liberalism’s irrational animus against religion in general and traditional forms of Christianity in particular.

My use of the term “irrational animus” isn’t arbitrary. The Supreme Court has made “irrational animus” a cornerstone of its jurisprudence on gay rights. A law cannot stand if it can be shown to be motivated by rationally unjustifiable hostility to homosexuals, and on several occasions the court has declared that traditional religious objections to homosexuality are reducible to just such a motive.

But the urge to eliminate Christianity’s influence on and legacy within our world can be its own form of irrational animus. The problem is not just the cavalier dismissal of people’s long-established beliefs and the ways of life and traditions based on them. The problem is also the dogmatic denial of the beauty and wisdom contained within those beliefs, ways of life, and traditions. (You know, the kind of thing that leads a doctor to risk his life and forego a comfortable stateside livelihood in favor of treating deadly illness in dangerous, impoverished African cities and villages, all out of a love for Jesus Christ.)

Contemporary liberals increasingly think and talk like a class of self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. The idea that someone, somewhere might devote her life to an alternative vision of the good — one that clashes in some respects with liberalism’s moral creed — is increasingly intolerable.

That is a betrayal of what’s best in the liberal tradition.

Liberals should be pleased and express gratitude when people do good deeds, whether or not those deeds are motivated by faith. They should also be content to give voluntary associations (like religious colleges) wide latitude to orient themselves to visions of the human good rooted in traditions and experiences that transcend liberal modernity — provided they don’t clash in a fundamental way with liberal ideals and institutions.

In the end, what we’re seeing is an effort to greatly expand the list of beliefs, traditions, and ways of life that fundamentally clash with liberalism. That is an effort that no genuine liberal should want to succeed.

What happened to a liberalism of skepticism, modesty, humility, and openness to conflicting notions of the highest good? What happened to a liberalism of pluralism that recognizes that when people are allowed to search for truth in freedom, they are liable to seek and find it in a multitude of values, beliefs, and traditions? What happened to a liberalism that sees this diversity as one of the finest flowers of a free society rather than a threat to the liberal democratic order?

I don’t have answers to these questions — and frankly, not a lot hinges on figuring out how we got here. What matters is that we acknowledge that something in the liberal mind has changed, and that we act to recover what has been lost.

Wearing A Muslim Hijab For Lent

Luke 4:24

Jessey Eagan, a married Christian mother of two, has decided to wear a hijab for Lent in an attempt to remind herself “what it feels like to be an outsider”.

“See, we lived in Amman, Jordan about 7 years ago where we ended up teaching at an Islamic school,” she told BuzzFeed News. “While we were there we met many Muslims and built great personal friendships with them. And living in a culture where I stuck out like a sore thumb, I personally know what it can feel like to be an outsider, and I wanted to remind myself of that, so that I can better love all people, no matter what they look like.”

In her blog, the children’s director at her church in Peoria, Illinois, wrote about a Muslim friend’s response to her idea to wear a hijab, and how it spurred her on:

Before I fully explain my reasoning, let me tell you how I came to the decision. I told my husband my idea and he encouraged me to do it, but I decided that I needed to ask a local Muslim friend her thoughts on it. She wears hijab for many reasons, I’m sure, but one is identification with her Muslim community. I wanted to make sure that I would not be disrespecting or offending the Muslim community, so I asked her opinion. Her response was this,

“You are a very thoughtful person full of great ideas ... I don’t see a reason why people get offended by a very thoughtful, nice, and peaceful act. Our role is teach and educate all people and I’m 100% in support of this idea ... My hijab drawer is yours come and pick what u like. If u don’t have time I can bring them to u, just let me know what colors.”

How great is that? I met her at the Islamic school this morning to pick up the scarves and she helped me put on my first hijab for the Lenten season.

“Jesus said to love our neighbors, strangers, and enemies. I think this is something that is not often taken seriously by many Christians,” she told BuzzFeed News. “We are so influenced by the media, that we allow fear to take over, and forget to love. Fear is the opposite of love.”

One thing Eagan says she hopes to do next is use make-up to “darken” her complexion and “go out into the community.”

“My friend told me that white Muslims and brown Muslims have different experiences, as do black Muslims, within the Islamic community as well as in the community at large,” she said. “This is all about helping my people, specifically white Christians, learn how to see difference, embrace it, and engage with it. That’s what hospitality does. It welcomes people who were once outsiders into a community with love and the desire to understand.”

“I wanted to see what my friends’ public lives are like, how they experience my community differently from me,” she said.

“It is likely, I think, that my friends would tell me many positive things and avoid speaking negatively, either about their experience or why they wear the hijab,” Eagan added. “I also wouldn’t get to understand my own prejudices towards people, which has come out at least twice.”

Eagan said she expected people “wearing cammo or driving big trucks” to threaten her, but that she’s been “proven wrong each time.”

She described one interaction she had with a friend in her local area: “Yesterday at church a woman, whom I have known for quite a long time, came up to me and said, ‘Jessey, I wanted to let you know that I have been reading your blog and I am so proud of you and what you are doing. Before reading your blog, I never would have even made eye contact with someone wearing hijab. But I was at an event the other day where I saw a Muslim woman and I did make eye contact with her’.

“How great is that? Such a small gesture for her to make, and at the same time it was a huge step for her.”

________

Original title is: A Christian Woman Is Wearing A Hijab For Lent To See What It’s Like To Be An “Outsider”

The Bible Speaks On Racism

John 3:16

Not long ago I preached in a downtown mission to a group of men who had been living on the street. It was a diverse group and I wanted to talk with them about racism in the wake of recent events that had raised tensions in various communities around the country.

I wanted to share with them what the Bible said about what they had in common beyond just their shared circumstances and how Christ gives us ultimate unity.

I noted seven biblical reasons why racism is wrong. Here they are:

God created all races (Genesis 1:27)

Every person from every race is created in the image of God. Races were not accidental or the result of sin. They are an expression of God Himself. He built diversity into the very DNA of mankind. If God created all races, then we must show value and respect for all races.

All races are fallen and sinful (Romans 3:10,23)

The Bible teaches that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is no race that can claim to be better than any other when it comes to the degree of sinfulness. Romans 3:10 says, “There is no one righteous, not even one” (CSB). What applies to individuals is true of races as well. We are all equally fallen.

God loves all races (John 3:16; 1 John 4:14)

When the Bible says, “For God loves the world in this way ...” (John 3:16 CSB), it is talking about the people of the world of all races and nationalities. God did not just show His love to one ethnic group, but all. That is why John says later that He is the world’s Savior (1 John 4:14 CSB).

Christ died for all races (2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Hebrews 9:12)

The apostle Paul says that Christ died for all in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15. Christ died for all the peoples of the world. The only hope any person of any race has for salvation is in Christ. Hebrews 9:12 says that Christ entered the “holy of holies” with His own blood “once for all” to make the sacrifice for our sins. If Christ died for all races, then we cannot discriminate one over another.

Christ breaks down the wall between races (Ephesians 2:14-15)

Jesus not only broke down the wall of separation between us and God with His death on the cross, but the wall that separates us from one another. He broke down the barriers of hatred and division by giving us peace with God and peace with one another. This was not just true for Jew and Gentile but for all races.

We are one in Christ (Galatians 3:28-29)

The unity we experience in Christ results from sharing in a common faith in a common Savior that makes us part of the same family of God. That is why there is no more division between Jew and Gentile, male or female, slave or free. If we have all been saved by the same One, then we are all one in Him!

All races will join together in heaven (Revelation 7:9-10)

Ultimately, there will be people in heaven glorifying God around His throne from every nation, tribe, people and language (Revelation 7:9 CSB). We need to get used to joining together with people from other races because we are going to be spending eternity together! There will be no racism in heaven. That is just one of the things that will make heaven heaven!

I was visiting with a pastor who had received an anonymous letter from a person in his church recently lamenting the growing racial diversity in the congregation and the multi-ethnic expressions of worship. The letter said, “After all, this is the United States of America.”

I told the pastor that I hope that person knows that heaven is going to be filled with people from all races even more than the United States. He may not like it there! The Bible gives us plenty of reasons to know that racism is wrong. We just need to believe it and live it.

Our Brains On Fear and Empathy

John 1:46

[Holwick: how anti-religious prejudice is fed by our way of thinking.]

Anti-Muslim sentiment in America and abroad has grown in recent years, especially in light of the gruesome acts of Muslim extremists in Iraq and Syria. It is important to try to understand the fear and confusion that some, perhaps even many, Americans have about Muslims and Islam.

For American Muslims and for those of us who see ourselves as progressive allies of a vibrant pluralistic society, this may feel like a step backwards. Based on other successful public education campaigns that I have developed, working to understand people’s fear is a critical first step to appealing to people’s better angels.

Fear: How our downstairs brain, which is focused on keeping us safe, makes us suspicious of others

First, it’s important to understand that fear is our brain’s way of keeping us (and our species) alive.

Fear is regulated in our downstairs brain – a part of our brain called the amygdala. The amygdala, at an evolutionary level, is the oldest part of our brain. It is responsible for innate reactions and impulses that we have about the world around us – especially things that might harm us.

When our reptilian ancestors were making their way through the world millions of years ago, their brains were focused on spotting things that were different, new or unfamiliar.

Today, our downstairs brains continue to be attuned to people and things that are different or unfamiliar to us. When we notice something new or unfamiliar, our brains begin to develop what my psychologist colleague, Dr. Phyllis Watts, calls a mental template.

Mental templates help our brains remember how to relate to different, new or unfamiliar things, especially those things that may pose a risk to us.

Now, for those of us who are not Muslim, but who have many American Muslim coworkers, friends and neighbors, we are more likely to have the types of experiences that allow us to see Muslims the way that we see others in our social circles – going about their lives raising families, working hard, giving to charity and contributing positively to the fabric of American life and culture.

Those who know few, if any, Muslims are likely developing a limited, highly flawed mental template of Muslims. That’s because mainstream news performs a type of shock and awe assault on their psyches.

Because of a gap of knowledge based on real-world experiences with American Muslims, many Americans likely construct an inaccurate mental template of Muslims.

With an inaccurate mental template, many Americans’ downstairs brains are highly activated. In other words, when they hear or read about Muslims in the news, fear is driving their impulses and reactions.

It’s important to know that when our amygdala has been activated, it can shut down or limit access to our upstairs brain – where empathy resides. It does this in order to respond to fear and our evolutionary focus on survival.

This makes it very difficult for them to “hear” the type of intellectual messages that are meant to counter the negative stereotypes their minds have constructed because of all of the negative “noise” in their downstairs brain.

Empathy: How our upstairs brain can appeal to our better angels

Empathy is the ability to understand and to imagine another person’s experience. In other words, it is the capacity to walk in another person’s shoes – including those who are different from us.

Empathy is critical to our efforts to counter a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in America because as my colleague, Phyllis Watts, often says, “empathy is a precursor to altruistic behavior” (a person doing something that benefits others even if it doesn’t benefit them).

In other words, empathy helps to appeal to what Abraham Lincoln called the “better angels of our nature.”

The good news is that according to Roman Krznaric, author of Empathy: A Handbook for Revolution, 98% of humans are hardwired for empathy.

Great, so most of the world’s humans have the ability to understand or imagine other people’s perspectives – including what it must be like to be judged for the sins of others.

However, above, I just mentioned that it could be difficult for humans to even access their capacity to empathize if their amygdala is operating on overdrive.

There are several strategies to help to calm the downstairs brain so that we have access to empathy.

The first is to normalize or acknowledge the negative emotions that your audience is feeling. This may seem counter-intuitive. In fact, for those who are Muslim or those of us who admire, appreciate, love our Muslims neighbors, friends and colleagues, this may even feel icky.

Doing so, however, allows us to speak to our audiences in a way that allows them to be their better selves.

I’ve been in countless focus groups where I have been able to see how this helps to calm people down – their body language becoming noticeably more relaxed.

In my work to promote alternatives to school suspension for kids acting out in class or other minor acts of misbehavior, we understood that many teachers would be resistant to a new approach.

By simply sharing examples of other teachers who voiced the same misgivings, we named and normalized the anxiety they were feeling, which allowed them to listen to a message with a more open heart.

The second strategy is to surround them with familiarity. Neuroscientist Gregory Berns says, “familiarity calms the amygdala.”

Two sources of familiarity that work well: shared values and trusted messengers.

Change is possible

There is no doubt that this is hard work, but change is possible. Those who came before us have shown us the way. One king stands out in my mind. He said:

Martin Luther King, Jr. had amazing insights into human nature – what makes people tick and how you can shape positive perceptions of people who are different from you. He used that understanding to develop strategies to elicit empathy and lessen fear to do what seemed like the impossible – end Jim Crow segregation.

Adjusting Theology In the Shadow of Auschwitz

Acts 9

"Two covenant" theology says that God will save the Jews under their own system, not Christianity. Many Christian theologians have condemned the evangelism of Jews as anti-Semitism. Some of them see the New Testament as anti-Jewish as well.

J.I. Packer warns evangelicals of 4 temptations in making salvation...

1. Less urgent.

2. Less agonizing.

3. Less central.

4. Less substantial.

"To withhold the gospel from any people is to ensure their spiritual death. There is no distinction, since all have sinned."