Our National Character

James Taranto's on his "Best of the Web", in commenting on "climate change" , had the following:  

 "On the op-ed page of the New York Times , Matthew Algeo, author of "The President Is a Sick Man," describes how severe the weather has become. "On Tuesday, Aug. 22, in the Atlantic Ocean, four hurricanes were swirling simultaneously, an event never before recorded. . . . Wednesday night, one of the hurricanes slammed into New York City. At least 30 people were killed." Four days later, an even more powerful hurricane killed some 2,000 in and around Savannah, Ga.

What, you don't remember reading about those storms in the papers? That's not because reporters are dropping the climate-change ball, but because Algeo is writing history, not news. The hurricanes in question occurred in 1893.

The 22nd and 24th president "Grover Cleveland did nothing," Algeo writes. The 24th president, a Democrat, "opposed government intervention in natural disasters," which he thought, as he once wrote in a veto message, "encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But all's well that ends well. "Into the void stepped Clara Barton, . . . who had founded the American Red Cross 12 years earlier," Algeo writes. "Her heroic work, especially in the South, saved countless thousands from disease and starvation".

Taranto was using the passage to make a point about the hoax of man-made "climate change", because history reveals  that the weather was certainly as bad and unstable in the past as it is in modern days.   I think his story  makes a more salient point about who we have become as a people,  because I cannot imagine a modern day politician that would have the political gumption to  oppose intervention by the federal government in a natural disaster.

In the Christian worldview there are three social institutions ordained by God: the family, the church and government.  These "spheres" have there unique and specific functions and if one "sphere" tries to usurp the functions of another, then the results are always less than optimal and sometimes disastrous. 

Grover Cleveland seemed to instinctively know that if the federal government intruded on what was not it's "sphere", the results would be less than optimal.   Government intrusion would certainly create an expectation of entitlement in a populace that over time would increasingly see themselves as victims and demand to be "saved".

We saw this born out in New Orleans during Katrina and we are seeing it in parts of New Jersey and New York where residents are increasingly giving voice, sometimes hysterically,  that they are not only not receiving enough help, but are not receiving it immediately.   Today's politicians are getting elected on the promise that they can solve any and all problems.  They climate they have created is coming home to roost and it is increasingly clear that the federal government is ill equipped to respond effectively to local emergencies.

After Katrina, I made three mission trips to the Gulf coast and I can unequivocally state that it wasn't the federal government who put things back together, but the church and para-church organizations who provided material aide and spiritual comfort.  Uncle Sam wasted billions of dollars in inefficieny on items ranging from FEMA trailers to credit cards that were used to purchase vacations and TV's.

The same is happening in New York and New Jersey in the aftermath of Sandy.   The Red Cross, Samaritan's Purse, the Salvation Army, the Southern Baptists, who  are providing over 400,000 meals a day,  and a hosts of other church organizations are on the ground providing aid and comfort while the FEMA stumbles around with waste and inefficiency.

Grover Cleveland was exactly right.  We have let the federal government assume a role which it was never intended to play and the result has been a weakening of our national character on two fronts: we have become a nation of victims and a nation who sits on our hands expecting the government to do what we should be doing.   
 

  

Loving our Neighbor?

Anyone who pays any modicum of attention to current events is aware of the Chik-fil-A kerfuffle that took place last week because of CEO Dan Cathy's affirmation of traditional marriage.  I won't rehash the details, but it was encouraging to see the level of support for Chik-Fil-A in my area last week as all three were at capacity all day long. 

From all reports that I have seen, the "kiss out" that was supposed to take place on Friday was a bust.  Not surprising, since homosexuals make up only 1-3% of the population, although one would never know it given their ability to generate attention.

It is incredible to see the hypocrisy of the media and politicians who are always promoting that great American virtue, "tolerance".  Cathy never mentioned homosexual marriage in any of his comments, yet the hue and outcry from those who favor homosexual marriage was immediate, vicious and unrelenting. 

Those who demand "tolerance" seem to be unwilling to practice it themselves.  The reason is that they have a false definition of the word.  In the classical definition, to tolerate something means the willingness to put up with opinions or behavior, even though one disagrees with them.  Now it seems, not only does one have to put up with homosexuality, one has to agree that it is normal behavior and affirm those who practice it.  To do otherwise is to be "intolerant".  The word has been robbed of its meaning.  It is impossible to tolerate something unless one disagrees with it.

There has been a lot of acrimonious debate from both sides of this issue.  Regrettably, some of it comes from those who call ourselves Christians.  How are Christians supposed to respond to those who want to change cultural norms?  To those who want to impose their morality on the rest of society and redefine an institution that has existed since the dawn of civilization?

One good answer comes from Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City in his DVD series, "The Reason For God".   Keller sits down with a group of non-believers and takes on the tough challenges to the Christian faith.  In one segment entitled, "What gives you the right to tell me how to live my life", he takes on the question of homosexuality.

One of the group asks him,  and in a not so kind manner I think, "What is the Christian view of homosexuality?".  Keller acquitted himself very well saying that the Christian response was on three levels.

The first thing he says is that our response must be one of love.  The Scripture presents this in the parable of the good Samaritan and in Christ sacrifice for us on the Cross.  We must treat everyone with dignity and respect, especially in addressing this issue.

Secondly, Keller brings up the doctrine of grace.  He says that he attempts at every turn to pull out the arrogance that Christians can easily fall into by reminding them that they are not saved by being "good" people, but solely by the grace of God.  

Thirdly, he approaches it from the fact that Christians believe that God created us with design and purpose.  In the area of sex, he designed it to take place between an man and woman within the confines of a lifelong marriage.  When we follow God's design, we maximize our joy in what He has given us.  When we don't follow his design, we miss out on God's best and suffer the attendant consequences.

The third point can be a powerful argument when presented in light of his first two.  We speak out against normalizing homosexuality precisely because we love our neighbor and want what is best for him or her.  The homosexual lifestyle is subject to a whole host of physical and psychological ills.  Who in his right mind wouldn't want to steer his neighbor away such  destruction?

 

What is the difference?

Aris Nichols of Chester, SC, stabbed his girlfriend back in April of this year.  Wednesday, he was arrested and charged with "death or injury to a child in utero due to commission of a violent crime".  You see, Brittany Jordan, the girlfriend,  was several months pregnant at the time of the stabbing and the unborn child, who the papers identified as "a son named Tavaris", did not survive the attack.

Now is it just me, or does anyone else see the incoherence in this?  If Brittany had gone to her doctor and had him perform an abortion,  no one would outside of the immediate family would have even noticed and Tavaris would have been just as dead.

Tavaris was either a human being or he was not.  If he wasn't, then Mr. Nichols should not be charged in his death.    If he was, then police are right to charge Mr. Nichols, but how can they charge him and let abortionists go free?   Someone will reply, "but Gray, abortion is legal".  That is what has me stumped.  How can our legal system continue to function with such convoluted logic?  I feel like I'm living in Alice's Wonderland, where down is up and up is down.

A Real Man

My question today is: “What does it mean to be a real man”?   That’s a hard question.  I recently asked two friends that question, and I have to tell you, I got blank stares.   It’s a hard question because we tend to drift along in life and never think about it.   We drift along with this fuzzy concept of manhood that we never really nail down.

In his book, “The True Measure of a Man” Richard Simmons ( not the Richard Simmons who wears the Tutu)  uses the term “false masculinity”.  What he means by that is that we as men are prone to get our identity, our sense of worth as a man, from the wrong sources.  He believes that we as men often define ourselves by what we do, who we know, how much money we make, what we own and so on.  When any of those things are threatened, we find our world falling apart.  It stresses us.  Why?    Because, deep down, we worry that without our trappings of professional success, status or wealth, we will not be considered a man.

To compound the problem, we pass this lack of clarity on manhood down to the next generation. Teenage boys are constantly told to act like men. To Man up.   The only problem is that most fathers never give them a real clear definition of manhood and their lives end up being shaped by the culture around them.  As a consequence, they fall into the same trap that many of us do, letting their self-worth rise or fall with their paycheck, the car they drive, their athletic prowess and so on.

I readily admit, that it is hard not to be drawn into this type of thinking because we live in a culture that is obsessed with getting affirmation from performance and achievement.  Tim Keller, the senior pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian in New York City, says that we are the first culture in history where men define themselves this way.

It has not always been this way.  Prior to WW II and maybe for a generation afterward, men would get their identity and sense of worth as a man through family relationships and by being known as men of character. 

Let me give you an example.  I remember growing up in McCormick County.  My Dad was a rural mail carrier who also had grown up there.   There weren’t many people in the county that did not know my Dad.  Wherever I happened to be as a teenager, if I ran into an adult who wanted to know who I was, and I told him my name, the reply was invariably, “Oh, you’re Gray’s boy.  I know your Dad.  He’s  a fine man”.  I was automatically given status and identity based on a family relationship with a man of character.

In the decade following WWII, as families became scattered, men turned other things besides family relationships in a search for identity and the meaning of manhood.  Unfortunately, they turned to the things I mentioned earlier.

In the social mobility of the post World War II economic boom, we became a consumer driven culture.   We began to define ourselves by what we could buy.   On top of that, not only were we consumers, we became conspicuous consumers and we measured ourselves not only by what we had, but what the guy next door had.  Advertisers tapped into our fears that we somehow did no measure up unless we had a certain product, convincing us to buy homes, cars, and all types of things, not because we necessarily need them, but to make a statement to some audience whose opinion we valued.

It has been said that  “a man gets his identity based on who or what in his life is most important to him”.   I happen to think that is somewhat true.  So the question is:  who is my audience?  What or who have I empowered to determine my value and worth as a man?

Lately, another factor known as  “The Graphic Revolution” has come into play.  Television with reality shows and shows like “American Idol”, the internet with You Tube and Facebook have become an integral part of our culture.  We now have the power to make average people doing average things “famous”.  We are a culture that thrives on celebrity.  We want to be noticed.  We have become more image conscious and less quality conscious.  American culture has become more interested in the appearance of success and not so much in the quality of our work and our character.  Studies show that American men would rather be envied for their material success and fame that respected for their character.

So if that us the problem, how do we solve it?  So how do we reorient the basis for our identity?  Remember the quote, “a man gets his identity based on who or what in his life is most important to him”?

What if we as Christian men determined that that “most important person” in our life was Jesus Christ and the most important thing was to please Him?  What if we got our sense of identity, our sense of worth from the God of the universe sees us?  What would our identity as a man be like?   Well, if , and only if, you have yielded your life to Christ and He is Lord of your life, God tells us how he sees us.

If we got our identity in Christ, we would not have to worry about performance because we are already accepted.

     Colossians 1:14 says that we have been redeemed and forgiven of our sins.

     Ephesians 2:18 says that we have been adopted as God’s child. We are the Kings Kids.

     1 Corinthians 6:20 says that we have been bought with a price and we belong to God.

If we got our identity in Christ, we would not have to worry about external circumstances, because we are already secure.          

Colossians 3:3 says that we are hidden with Christ in God.

     Romans 8:36 says that we cannot be separated from the love of God.

2 Timothy 1:2 says that we have not been given a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power, love and a sound mind.

If we got our identity in Christ, we would not have to worry about significance because we are already significant.           

     Ephesians 2:10 says we are God’s workmanship.

     1 Corinthians 3:16 says we are God’s temple.

If we want to be the men that God designed and called us to be, we have to buy into the fact that the One who made us determines our identity and worth as man.   God doesn’t love us because we are valuable, because we have status, wealth, etc.   We are valuable because God loves us.

And what is the proof that God loves us?  The fact that He sent His Son Jesus into the world to save us.   Jesus stepped down into history and and was willing to pay the penalty that we could not pay, so we could have eternal fellowship with a God who loves us with a passion beyond anything we could imagine.

Now I asked “What does it mean to be a real man”.   I’m sure there are dozens of definitions, but here is one: A real man is an adult male whose character conforms to the character of Jesus Christ who got His sense of identity from His Father.  Think about it.  Jesus, fully God, fully man, walked this earth and He had every virtue worth emulating.  He was loving, so much so that he wept openly on occasion; He was not ashamed to cry.  He was compassionate, serving those who needed help.  He was humble, not seeking His own glory but the glory of his Father.  He was honest, saying that He came to testify to the truth and claiming that He was the truth.  He was a loyal friend, restoring Peter after Peter had failed Him.  He had incredible physical courage: John Wayne once said that being brave is being afraid and saddling up anyway.  Jesus spent an agonizing night in the Garden of Gethsemane and He saddled up anyway.  But the most important virtue that Jesus possessed was that His sole purpose in life was to honor His Father in Heaven regardless of the consequences.

Would that we answer the call to be such a man.

How does one become a Christian?

• but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, --1 Peter 3:15

The end of the thread of the conversation went like this:
"Become a Christian?  What do you mean by becoming a Christian?  I thought that you were sort of born that way.  Like in America--you are born here-- so you are automatically a Christian right?"

Whoa.  How does one respond to one who obviously has no understanding of Christianity  without resorting to  "Christianese" terms like "repentance", "born again", etc.,  that the person won't understand?

Well here goes nothing I thought as I took a deep breath, said a quick prayer and attempted to answer.

"Being born in America", I began, "no more makes you a Christian, than being born in a car factory makes you a car. "

"Christianity is different from every other religion in the world.  All other religions are DO religions. The focus is on what the person can do to make himself a "good" person and therefore acceptable to God."

"Christianity is a DONE religion.  Christians realize that there is nothing that they can do on their own to make themselves acceptable to God, but the good news is that everything that would make them acceptable has already been done by Christ.  He has done for us what we could never do for ourselves, which is  live a perfect, sinless life and die in our place to pay the penalty that God's perfect justice demands for our rebellion against Him."

"To become a Christian means we realize who God is, how holy He is,  and that we have wronged him.  We ask His forgiveness and accept the fact that Jesus paid a debt that we owe.  Then we make Jesus the boss of our lives, quit living for ourselves and live a life that would please Him.  Not to earn brownie points, but because we love Him more than anything else."

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

 

Disciple or merely "Religious"

What is the difference between a Disciple of Christ and a "Religious Person"?

Tim Keller gives a comparison list":

RP: I obey, therefore I'm accepted.
DoC:  I'm accepted, therefore I obey.

RP: Motivation is based on fear and insecurity.
DoC: Motivation is based on grateful joy.

RP: I obey God in order to get things from God.
DoC: I obey God to get to God--to delight and resemble Him.

RP: My identity and self-worth are based mainly on how hard I work, or how moral I am.
DoC: My identity and self-worth are centered on the one who died for His enemies.  I am saved by sheer grace.

It is the difference between knowing Jesus and knowing about Jesus.