Eternal Perspectives

Michael Spencer has a post at The Barth’s Head Tavern about sex abuse scandals in the Southern Baptist Convention. He says, in part:

The SBC is the largest Protestant denomination and it has little or no interest in admitting that a percentage of the many adults who work with its children and youth are dangerous predators. Now the victim’s groups are coming for the SBC churches and leaders who have looked the other way. It’s not an RCC [Roman Catholic Church] thing, and the cover ups by pastors are just as bad.”

Michael is correct about what he says – this is a scandal of horrid proportions – but doesn’t mention (perhaps because it wasn’t his point) a more damning scandal lurking in the shadows. But neither scandal is limited to any particular denomination, theology, or division of Christendom.

The other scandal involves institutional blindness and paralysis. Or worse.

When I was in seminary in the early 1980s, I did some research on sex abuse: its prevalence, nature, origins, etc. Even then it was approaching epidemic proportions: one of the popular books on the matter was entitled The Common Secret. It hasn’t gotten any better in the last couple of decades.

The statistics on such abuse are readily available online: a simple search will return millions of sites having information on the subject. One report says that in a seven-year period (1986-1993) sexual abuse doubled in the United States. How much of that is due to an actual increase and how much stems from increased reporting is impossible to determine. One conclusion is probably pretty safe: the problem isn’t going away.

The not-so-secret scandal in churches is that, as my own research showed, this is not something new: we – the Christian community – have known about this problem for a long time. We have also known that the sexual abuse of children crosses all sorts of lines, whether socio-economic, ethnic, or denominational. Being in a Christian home or a Christian church does not guarantee the safety of our children.

Some churches, including many in the SBC, have begun to screen individuals working with children and to implement policies that greatly reduce the opportunities sexual predators might have. The problem can never be completely eradicated or controlled, but much can be done to make it more difficult for perpetrators and the church much safer for our children.

Given the information available to churches for years and years, however, it must be asked why it has taken the church so long to protect children. Some churches, sadly, only begin to protect after the fact: someone has been caught, a lawsuit has been brought, criminal charges are filed, and now the church acts because it has to act.

I don’t know all the reasons for the blindness and inactivity that have inflicted local churches. Perhaps it is a false sense of security, some naëve ideas about the trustworthiness of people in church, or a preoccupation with missions and building projects that siphons money off for such things. Maybe it’s just that they don’t want to admit the problem or spend money to fix the porous holes of the sheep pen.

Whatever the causes might be, however, the time passed long ago for the church to make sure its own house is not only clean, but safe. Those in positions of responsibility, which includes all of us to some extent, will have to answer to the Great Shepherd one day. Given His devotion to children and the helpless, the matter of sexual abuse in the church is likely to be one of the first things He asks us.

Many years ago, at least 40 and perhaps 45, I was required by an English literature teacher to read a book. The book was Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, which many of you have also read voluntarily or involuntarily. In that I read the book only once so long ago, I truly remember very little of it, except for some of the conditioning programs perpetrated on children to prepare them for their chosen (by others) careers. It is a dark and troubling recollection, proof of Emerson remark that impressions are more significant – and truly more enduring – than explicit memories.

Huxley’s work was one of two prophetic novels produced during the early and mid-20th Century. The other, of course, was George Orwell’s 1984. I have never read Orwell’s work; I am in the process of reading it now. I suspect that 1984 will be far more meaningful to me than Brave New World was: I am an adult now and not consumed by adolescent distractions and hormones. I also have a feeling that I will return to Huxley’s work in the near future for a second, more profitable reading.

I have 1984 only because my older daughter had to read it while in high school. Her appreciation for Orwell’s genius was lacking at the time, although I am confident that she would have a quite different perspective as she approaches her twenty-fifth birthday. At least, she would if I could somehow get her to read it again. But that is unlikely: having been exposed to the book prematurely, she now is safely innoculated against willingly partaking of a book that left such a sour, bitter taste in her mouth.

Her experience is not uncommon. It seems that teachers are compelled to require students to read books that they (the educators) love now as adults and, perhaps, only now fully understand. Forgotten are the emotional, neurological, and spiritual thunderstorms of puberty and its immediate aftermath: teens are asked to read an intellectual novel in the midst of Mardi Gras or Hurricane Katrina. There is rarely any middle ground in the experiential world of teenagers.

As parents, we would do well to either discuss the problem with teachers to see if other books could be read – a pursuit not likely to succeed in many cases – or to read through such books with our teens and educate them ourselves. Without meaning to paint with too broad a brush, I simply do not trust high school teachers to emphasize the issues and teach the life lessons that I want my daughters to learn. It is not merely because so many do not share my worldview – indeed, some are truly Christians – but because I believe my daughters’ education is my responsibility and is not to be handed off to someone else. I do not do all the educating, obviously, but some aspects are too important to ignore.

If it were in my power, I would not allow anyone to read classic literature – whether Shakespeare, Orwell, Twain, Dickens, etc. – until they were at least past the age of twenty-five and had developed sufficient realism to benefit from such writing. To allow children – for teens are children – to read them too early is to rob them of the wisdom and beauty of such books in their later years.

Sorry, nothing profound or serious. It’s just that I think that my comments are finally fixed and working (thanks to Valerie, my tech savior!).

If you have a problem – with commenting, not me – let me know via email.

Then again, if you do have a problem with me, you can just leave a comment now!

Bob forgot Valentine’s Day.

His wife was really angry.

She told him “Tomorrow morning, I expect to find a gift in the driveway that goes from 0 to 200 in 6 seconds AND IT BETTER BE THERE!!”

The next morning Bob got up early and left for work. When his wife woke up, she looked out the window and sure enough there was a large box gift-wrapped in the middle of the driveway. Confused, the wife put on her robe and ran out to the driveway, and began tearing away at the box.

She opened it and found a brand new bathroom scale.

Bob has been missing since yesterday.

It’s a simple choice: Jack Bauer (”24“) or Mack (”FutureWeapons“). They’re on at the same time each Monday but that’s not the choice I’m talking about. I’m asking, If you were going into a firefight and could take Jack or Mack, whom would you choose?

Jack

EXPERIENCE:
Department of Defense, Washington DC – Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
CTU – Director of Field Operations, Los Angeles Domestic Unit
CTU – Former Special Agent in Charge, Los Angeles Domestic Unit
Los Angeles PD – Special Weapons and Tactics

EDUCATION:
LASD – Basic SWAT School
Master of Science, Criminology and Law – University of California (Berkeley)
Bachelor of Arts, English Literature – University of California (Los Angeles)
Special Forces Operations Training Course

MILTARY:
US Army – Combat Applications Group,
Delta Force Counter Terrorist Group

Mack

“Richard “Mack” Machowicz’s expertise with soldier craft and military hardware comes from his experience as a 10-year veteran of the U.S. Navy SEALs. During his service tenure, he participated in numerous tactical operations with SEAL Team ONE and TWO. While at SEAL Team TWO he was attached to the training cadre as the Leading Petty Officer of Land, Mountain and Arctic Warfare.

“Mack has over 20 years experience in the martial arts, studying such systems as muay thai boxing, Jeet Kune Do, kickboxing, aikido, jujitsu, savate, arnis and karate. He was a certified instructor in the Naval Special Warfare Combat Fighting Instructor Course, a Naval Special Warfare Scout/Sniper and has received multiple black belts. Machowicz also served as a personal protection specialist for many high profile individuals within the political arena, business world and entertainment industry.

“As founder of the Bukido Institute and creator of the Bukido Training System, Machowicz teaches a performance philosophy that uses unarmed combat as a pathway for exploring the dynamics of doubt, hesitation, second-guessing, stress, pain, fatigue and fear. Bukido shows clients — including professional athletes and entertainment industry executives — how to maximize their ability to focus in any environment.”

Tony Dungy, of Super Bowl and “born-again Christianity” fame, is intolerant.

I would not have known this were it not for an emotional rebuke of the NFL coach in an article appearing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Tony Dungy’s off-field fumbles” (HT: The Pearcey Report). I will allow that Dungy is, in a very restricted sense of the word, intolerant – but it is not the sense of intolerance implied in the article. In fact, I find Dr Jonathan Zimmerman, the writer of the article, to be more broadly intolerant in a fashion much different and more dangerous than the intolerance of Dungy.

Coach Dungy is intolerant in this way: he is intolerant of ideas that he believes to be detrimental to those that hold them. More than that, he believes that maintaining such beliefs will result in a disasterous, eternal outcome. Because of that, he desires to have people understand and agree with his beliefs but does not coerce others to do so or demean them if they do not. In contrast, Dr Zimmerman is intolerant of people with whom he disagrees on such matters. He does not consider Dungy’s belief in itself to be problematic but views the people who hold such ideas to be undesirable. Thus, he does not attack Dungy’s position but Dungy himself.

Dungy is intolerant of ideas while tolerating and respecting the right of others to hold them; Zimmerman is tolerant of erroneous beliefs while intolerant of people who hold them. This is a significant difference.

The Inquirer article, appearing in yesterday’s edition of the newpaper, was prompted by comments Dungy made Sunday evening in Miami following his Colts’ 29-17 victory over the Chicago Bears in the Super Bowl. The coach is reported as saying,

I’ll tell you what. I’m proud to be representing African-American coaches, to be the first African-American to win this. That means an awful lot to our country. But again, more than anything – I said it before – Lovie Smith and I are not only the first two African-Americans, but Christian coaches showing that you can win, and doing it the Lord’s way. We’re more proud of that.”

Perhaps because I, too, am one of those “born-again” types, the supposed intolerance of this otherwise gentle, humble, loving man had eluded me and I had instead appreciated his temporal priorities and eternal perspective. But Dr Zimmerman explains his issue – and maybe his issues, as well – in the piece. He writes:

I’m troubled by the implication that Dungy’s version of Christianity is the only ‘real’ or legitimate one. Christians are every bit as diverse as America itself. And lots of them see the world very, very differently than Tony Dungy does.”

Were Dr Zimmerman interpreting biblical passages rather than impromptu, spontaneous remarks following an emotional sporting event, I might build a case and accuse him of eisogesis, i.e., of having read into Dungy’s words what he desired and needed to find. I prefer, however, to reserve terms such as “eisogesis” and “exegesis” for more noble purposes and thus will not employ them here.¹

Zimmerman continues:

What distinguishes Dungy and Smith is their born-again Christianity, not their ‘Christianity’ per se. And the problem starts when we lose sight of this distinction.”

It should be noted that it is Dr Zimmerman who has lost sight of the distinction, not Dungy. The noted historian and educator fails to observe that this “born-again Christianity” which he vilifies has produced certain results (winning a Super Bowl) in a certain way (without disrespect, intimidation, or manipulation). It is this approach to life and football, not a claim to be Christian, that distinguishes Dungy (and Bears Coach Lovie Smith) from most coaches who have risen to similar levels of success.

Dr Zimmerman is upset and irritated that Coach Dungy, in speaking for his “version of Christianity,” i.e., Christians of the “born-again” variety, is intolerant of other professing Christians who either are not “born-again” or do not employ such phraseology. Whether or not Dungy actually said this or not is irrelevant for the purposes of this post: this post is about two types of intolerance, one that is respectful of others’ freedom of choice and one that is not.

In closing, Dr Zimmerman declares,

Tony Dungy says he follows the ‘Lord’s way,’ and more power to him. But there are many different ways to follow the Lord, and Dungy’s isn’t any better than yours. Or than mine.”

His last sentence is critical. If it is true, then there are far-reaching ramifications for “born-again” Christians and their desire to tell others of a saving relationship with Jesus Christ that requires, in their view, a spiritual regeneration. But, as Aaron Wildavsky has reminded us in a different context, we must ask, “Is it true?” In his book, Wildavsky says that although it is a bad thing to be misled or harmed, it is worse to be lied to or hurt in the name of health. “Born-again” Christians might argue that while it is bad to be misinformed or wrong, it is eternally worse to be deceived and misguided in the name of tolerance.

But to return to the matter of intolerance, the choice we have is between a worldview that is intolerant of some beliefs but tolerant of people (Dungy) or a view that is tolerant of all beliefs but intolerant of people who subscribe to certain beliefs (Dr Zimmerman). How one can tolerate the belief but not the person is difficult to explain, but Dr Zimmerman’s reasoning implies that it is possible.

At the end of the day, perhaps we are indebted to Dr Zimmerman for providing us a clear example of intolerance in his article. What comes into focus, however, is not the intolerance of a Tony Dungy, who respects people, but rather the intolerance of a Dr Jonathan Zimmerman, who clearly does not.

¹ I do not mean to disparage Dr Zimmerman in any way. According to the NYU site, he is “Professor of Education and History and Director of the History of Education Program, Steinhardt School of Education. He also holds an appointment in the Department of History of NYU’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.” Furthermore, he spent two years as a teacher with the Peace Corps in Nepal, a sacrifice that reflects a commitment far beyond what most of us are willing to do for our professions.

It may be that Dr Zimmerman’s book reveals more than he intended: it may, in fact, give us some background on and insight into how the American educational system lost its way and began teaching a confusing, relative, postmodern curriculum. There is little doubt (at least in my mind) that our educational system is failing in some critical and vital areas, perhaps more through the implicit philosophies of teachers than the explicit musings of books.

Yesterday morning, as usual, I stopped by Milton’s and read his post, “What is the gospel, really?” He took me by the elbow and led me to a couple of posts by Darryl Dash that were, in turn, prompted by a soon-to-be-released book by Ron Martoia (Static). As Darryl reminds us, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once commented that Paul taught us

as many as fifty gospels in a nutshell. If the gospel is that rich and layered, encompasses the whole biblical story, then it makes sense to spend a bit of time making sure we haven’t settled for a truncated version.”

Since I have an aversion (especially at my age) to anything truncated, I took note of the statement but didn’t pursue it any further at that time. Later in the day, however, when I was clicking through old issues of Bibliotheca Sacra, I came across a series on The Book of Romans written by S. Lewis Johnson. (To purchase the software, which includes hundreds of years of various journals, click the BibSac link.) Johnson has influenced me considerably by his commitment to scholarship and thoroughness and I therefore was drawn to read one article in particular, “The Gospel That Paul Preached.” Johnson begins his 1971 comments by observing,

A host of commentators on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans have said that verses sixteen and seventeen of chapter one are a concise summary of the content of the letter. Professor C. K. Barrett has gone further in his comments on the verses. He has written, ‘Most commentators recognize in them the “text” of the epistle; it is not wrong to see in them a summary of Paul’s theology as a whole.’ It would be difficult to disagree with Barrett, particularly when one considers the use to which Paul in his writings has put the concept derived from Habakkuk. ‘The just shall live by faith,’—it is, without question, near the soul of Pauline theology.

“On the other hand, one may legitimately wonder if the commentators have gone far enough. Remembering that the Pauline text is derived from the prophet Habakkuk, and that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews also puts the text to use (cf. Heb 10:38), would it be an exaggeration to suggest that in the text from Habakkuk, with Paul’s additional explanatory clauses of verses sixteen and seventeen , there is a pithy expression of the essence of the doctrine of the Word of God?

“It has been said somewhere that the whole Law, according to the Jews, was given to Moses in 613 precepts, that David reduced them in the fifteenth Psalm to eleven, that Isaiah further diminished them to six, Micah to three, Isaiah in a later passage to two, but Habakkuk condensed all 613 into one,—’the just shall live by faith.’ Be that as it may, Habakkuk’s great text, with his son Paul’s comments and additions, became the banner of the Protestant Reformation in the hands of Habakkuk’s grandson, Martin Luther. ‘The just shall live by faith,’—the clause is a marvelous cameo of scriptural truth. It is safe to say, too, that the truth of the clause has had as profound an effect upon the history of the West as the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence.

“If this great truth of justification by faith is at the heart of Paul’s letter to the Roman church, then the epistle may come as something of a surprise to modern ecclesiastics. One might have expected the apostle to address believers at Rome, a city crammed with social problems, with a social manifesto or, at the least, a recitation of the primary truths of Christianity in their application to the social problems of the imperial city. Rome was a city of slaves, but Paul does not preach against slavery. It was a city of lust and vice, but he does not aim his mightiest guns at these evils. It was a city of gross economic injustice, but he does not thrust the sword of the Spirit into the vitals of that plague. It was a city that had been erected upon, and that had fed upon and prospered by the violence and rapacity of war, but the apostle does not expatiate upon its immorality.

“Apparently, if one is to judge the matter from a strictly biblical standpoint, Paul did not think that social reform in Rome was ‘an evangelical imperative.’ To him the evangelical imperative was expressed most penetratingly in the words which introduce the texts considered in this article, ‘I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel (that must be defined by the content of the epistle, as well as by the clauses that immediately follow) to you that are at Rome also’ (Rom 1:14-15, AV).

“The gospel of the revelation of a righteousness acceptable to God and available to men graciously upon the condition of faith was Paul’s imperative. It is still the imperative of the Christian church, and the Christian church will advance only to the extent that its gospel advances.” – “The Gospel That Paul Preached,” Bibliotheca Sacra, V128 #512—Oct 71.

As you all know, the gospel is simple: “The just shall live by faith.” There is much, of course, to be unpacked from those six words and the study of their implications and ramifications could consume a lifetime of study. But the declaration remains effectively brief, as Johnson goes on to say:

The apostle does not set forth the details of his gospel.’ The interpreter, however, is upon reasonably safe ground in assuming that they are found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5. The gospel is the good news of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances, together with the apostolic explanation of the doctrinal significance of these great facts. It is that which the apostle expounds in Romans, particularly chapters one through eight .

The word euaggelion (AV, ‘gospel’) by New Testament times came to mean good tidings, good news, and it carried with it a note of excitement. ‘Good news’ was and is the type of message one might shout across the street to a friend or neighbor. ‘The war’s over!’ ‘It’s a boy!’ ‘The [Colts] won!’ The Christian message has that same note of exhilaration. ‘The atonement’s accomplished!’ ‘God welcomes sinners!’

The good news is the statement of war’s end, a birth, a victory, or a salvation accomplished. Anyone hearing such news, were they interested, would immediately ask for the details, which would then be happily given. But the gospel remains encapsulated in Habbakuk’s words. As Johnson says, “the apostle’s meaning is simply this: The gospel is the power of God that leads to complete salvation, salvation from the penalty, power and, ultimately, the presence of sin.”

And that is, quite simply, good news, indeed!

The above picture arrived via email this afternoon, accompanied by the following explanation and information. Click on the picture for a larger image.

USS New York

It was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center.

It is the fifth in a new class of warship – designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft.

Steel from the World Trade Center was melted down in a foundry in Amite, LA to cast the ship’s bow section. When it was poured into the molds on Sept. 9, 2003, “those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence,” recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. “It was a spiritual moment for everybody there.”

Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the “hair on my neck stood up.

“It had a big meaning to it for all of us,” he said. “They knocked us down. They can’t keep us down. We’re going to be back.”

The ship’s motto? “Never Forget”