Gothard: Messenger or Manipulator?

Standard

I was walking across the mall with no time to waste.  Up ahead was one of those Dead Sea salt kiosks staffed by Israelis trained to intercept passing Gentiles. 

My intentions were to stride on by, keep my eyes focused ahead and totally avoid the high pressure sales tactics that make men of less mental fortitude into suckers.  I am not a sucker.

But as I passed I failed.  She spoke sweetly with an irresistible accent.  I was too nice to not answer a friendly greeting.  Sales people are human after all.  I let a reply slip.  “Thank you,” I said, “but, I’m in a hurry…” 

She was ready with an answer before I had even opened my mouth, my forward progress had somehow stopped, and she was rubbing lotion on my hand before I could think to protest.  My higher cognitive functions suddenly neutralized by the sensory input filling that primal need of physical touch.

I still was determined to resist.  I refused to make a purchase.  I am a consummate saver, a responsible spender, only buy things I need, and have no need of lotion, deep cleansers or any of that overpriced slime.  And, no, not for my mother, nor my sister, and what girlfriend, right?

“You’re really good at your job.”  I said, as I as I paid penance to the wiles of a soothing seductress, and contemplated male stupidity, and wondered what I would do with all the clutter she left in my hands, as if I had an obligation to spare her embarrassment of failure to sell. 

She never gave me the satisfaction of being right about her insincerity. 

What is manipulation?

To manipulate is to bend, form or move something and make it conform to your will.  We use a hammer as a persuasion device to manipulate steel or to pound a nail into a block of wood.  We try to manipulate our environment to make it more suitable to our own desired ends.

There are also people who manipulate other people, like my temporary friend at the mall kiosk, and try to control people through false means or fear.  This goes beyond simple persuasion.  Psychological manipulation, according to Wikipedia,“is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or abusive tactics.”

In the political sphere there is fear-mongering, demagoguery and pandering as manipulative tactics.  The manipulator plays on the emotions of the target audience.  He set himself up as an authority or in the know and trustworthy.  She poses as a concerned friend, a common person standing up against the bad people, or a heroic altruist.  But beneath the rhetoric is often a cynical calculated effort to buy votes and control people.

This is also an unfortunate aspect of religion.  Jesus warned of those who “tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders,” and yet, “they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” (Matthew 23) These people, he goes on to say, are “hypocrites,” who “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”  He’s speaking of the religious experts, the “teachers of the law” and Pharisees.

The Pharisees were outwardly righteous, they followed many rules trying to please God, they would continually ask, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”  But, despite their “diligent” study of the Scripture, we are told, “the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.” (John 5)  They missed the answer standing literally (literally) in front of them.

They were deceived, self-decieved, and destroyed the very people they ‘won’ over by their dedicated missional efforts, making them “twice as much a child of hell” as they are according to Matthew’s account.  They posed as gate keepers to the “kingdom of heaven” and, unfortunately, did not enter themselves.  They are “blind guides” who neglected more important matters of actual spiritual weight.  These were men full of themselves and not the Spirit of God. 

Who is Bill Gothard?

Bill Gothard, PhD is a teacher popular in some Biblical fundamentalist communities.  He is known for his seminars which give “principles” loosely based on the Bible.  He is an elderly man now, he was never married (although he does give marriage and child rearing advice) and founder of Institute in Basic Life Principles.  He recently resigned from his organization amid sexual harassment allegations.

image

(Read the “about me” on his website: http://billgothard.com/about )

I was asked for my thoughts about Gothard after my last blog post.  I had made a passing mention of him as one who rationalizes sexual abuse as a product of female immodesty or rebellion (kind of like earthquakes in Nepal) and I was also criticized for jumping on the bandwagon against him.  The link I provided was written from a “victim’s perspective” and apparently (in the critic’s opinion) the only right response for those who suffer abuse is forgiveness.

Well, I am not a victim of Mr. Gothard.  I have never met him in person.  I will leave it for God and others to judge Gothard’s personal life.  But, as one committed to “rightly dividing the word of truth,” (2 Timothy 2:15) I feel I must examine his teachings against Scripture.  I am familiar with his teachings. My church has hosted his seminars. I have had questions about his ideas and long before the Duggar family sexual molestation controversy put Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute in the spotlight.

My primary concern in this essay is with Gothard’s Scriptural hermeneutic and his theology, not his person.  There is some obvious overlap between the influence of his teachings, his behavior as a person and what he believes.  However, I prefer to stick as much to what is verifiable.  I do, as always, recommend looking for yourself rather than just take my word for it.  So I will give my perspective as an invitation to study for yourself and find the truth.

Gothard‘s teaching manipulates Scripture.

There are many different perspectives on Scripture and many opportunities to be wrong about what the Bible says.  I’ve made my share of mistakes when it comes to correctly understanding written texts.  I cannot fault a person for an occasional error in their interpretation and application of the Bible.  The Bible is a complex book and difficult to understand according to what is written in it:

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16 NIV)

Gothard’s teaching goes beyond just a simple misinterpretation of Scripture.  He makes fundamental and systematic errors in his Biblical exegesis.  He reads his own presuppositions into the text of the Bible and in ways that go directly against the actual explanations supplied within the text itself.  His understanding of Scripture seems to revolve around his own established ‘principles’ rather than go the other way around.  He neglects important concepts of faith while emphasizing his own prescriptions at the expense of whole truth.

This is not a perspective of Gothard’s work unique to me.  In a paper, “Issues of Concern—Bill Gothard and the Bible: A Report,” published May 30, 1984, Ronald B. Allen, ThD expressed the following evaluation:

“Gothard’s approach is not that of the careful exegete who wishes to determine the meaning of the text, but of the engineer who wishes to use the material in his own programmatic approach which is mechanical and not personal, mechanistic and not dynamic. Gothard does not really teach the Scripture; he really uses the Scripture to fit into his own categories.”

Gothard seemingly throws out the baby (what the Bible explains) to keep the bathwater of his own preconceived notions and prescriptive formulas.  His analysis of the book of Job is a glaring example of his editorial manipulation of a text.  Gothard actually comes out on the side of those who are rebuked by God for their false attribution of reasons for Job’s suffering, as Allen explains:

“The clear teaching of the Book of Job is that a mechanistic, cause-and-effect, approach to life may be way off base! Is it any wonder that Gothard tries to evade the clear teaching of the Bible that Job was a righteous man (the only reading on which the book works!), and finds many sins and character flaws in him (overwork in Christian causes, neglect of his family, embittered sons, estranged from family, wrong attitudes toward the workers). In this way the book is turned inside out and by this strange alchemy Job supports Gothard’s lists.

There is nothing in the Biblical text to suggest Job brought his suffering upon himself for something wrong he did.  In fact it was the righteousness of Job that was the theme of the book. At the end of the book God vindicated Job and rebuked his persecuting comforters:

“After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has… My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.”  (Job 42:7-8)

Gothard is repeating the folly of Job’s falsely accusing friends and does so despite having the end of the book where God sets them straight.  So, why would Gothard take the Job story and turn it upside down?  Well, perhaps it is because he over-applies an idea of sowing and reaping (or cause and effect) to every circumstance?  It becomes quite evident in Gothard’s teaching that every bad thing that happens to a person is a result of their own sin.

This erroneous idea is nothing new or unique to Job’s friends or Bill Gothard, the disciples of Jesus made the same mistake when they encountered a blind man in this Biblical account:

“As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”  “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”  (John 9:1-3)

Sometimes bad things are the result of nobody’s sin.  Jesus made a similar point as why we should show grace to all people when he reminded that God“causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”  (Matthew 5:45)  In other words, sometimes (or even most times) a rainstorm is just a rainstorm and not judgment or a reward for behavior from God.  Not every good thing that happens to a person is a reward, not every bad thing that happens is a punishment.

Gothard’s teaching manipulates people.

One of the responses to my last blog came from a woman molested by her own father at age nine.  She did not invite that upon herself by something she did.  Sexual abuse victims often feel a sense of guilt or shame and need to be freed from that to be able to move on.  But, if she goes to Gothard, this may be the tenor of the advice she gets:

image

Note the fourth point, “Why did God let it happen?”  In that there is “Result of defrauding by” and that followed by a list of four subpoints: Immodest dress; Indecent exposure; Being out from the protection of our parents; Being with evil friends?

I spoke at greater length about what the Bible actually says about modesty in my last post and there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says sexual molestation or rape is a result of female immodesty.  That woman molested at nine years old did not dress to draw her own father’s attention, she was in her own home, she was molested by a parent and, again, in her own home!  So that is quite the exception to the logic of “defrauding” laid out by Gothard’s counseling literature.  There should be a big exception clause at very least.

But Gothardism doesn’t allow for exceptions to his own rules.  In Gothard’s view, as with his mistreatment of Job’s suffering as somehow self-inflicted, if a young woman is raped then she must’ve done something to deserve it.  In his “character sketches” he twists the Biblical account of Dinah by attributing wrongful attitudes to her that cannot be found anywhere in the text.  Gothard makes Dinah out to be a rebellious daughter and thus responsible for what happened to her.  Then he turns the opposite direction and is critical of Tamar for actually obeying her father’s request.  Gothard’s logic is self-contradictory and contradicts the Bible.  Worse, it shames sexual assault victims by implicating them and it adds a weight of guilt undeserved.

The Bible doesn’t support the false dichotomies and overly simplistic principles of Gothard’s teachings.  But, rather than admit his thinking is flawed and repent, Gothard attempts to manipulate the Bible to fit his own preconceived ideas.  That is to elevate his own opinions above the very explanations given in Scripture.  Gothard manipulates Biblical evidence in the same way Satan twisted God’s words to deceive Eve and in the same way Satan later misused Scripture to tempt Jesus.

Gothardism attempts to manipulate God

It also appears Gothard thinks of God like a vending machine: You insert devotion to a list of basic principles, you turn a few levers, pull a few knobs and out pops a blessing.  This is a mechanical view of God.  Another blogger critiquing Gothard put it this way:

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Gothard’s heterodoxy is what it does to God. Not only does God plays little or no part in a believer’s life through omission, but Gothard actually teaches that God’s grace is bound to the limitations of our own abilities. It is not simply that God helps those who help themselves, but that God will not and cannot help anyone who is not already practicing the right principles.”

It is an underestimate of God that essentially makes us our own savior and that is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Sure, I see many good things in what Gothard teaches, his textbook contains many interesting anecdotes and observations about human nature, but it is missing something.  It reminds me of when Jesus said to the Pharisees, “go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’” (Matthew 9:13)

The quote Jesus used was from the sixth chapter of the book of Hosea.  At the time there was a complex ritual of sacrificial devotion to God and in that chapter the people, treating God like a vending machine, give a superficial repentance.   But God is not impressed.  God answers with “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” and doesn’t accept their religious devotion.

Gothard seems intent on trying to please God by his devotion to a set of life principles.  Unfortunately, in that he seems to have gotten off track and is so concerned about tithing spices of his own system that he neglects the weightier matters of spiritual life (Matthew 23) and that being genuine relationship with God.  God is not a machine.  Faith is not mere religious devotion to a set of principles.

What is missing from Gothard’s teaching?

Grace is the wild card in a black and white world of determinism’s cause-and-effect dictates.  The Gospel without grace is like a car without wheels.  Over and over again in the critique of Gothard’s work is mention of a lack of his proper understanding of grace.  Yes, there is mention of grace in Gothard’s work, but there seems to be a difference between what he means by grace and what is spelled out in Scripture.  Grace is not a mechanical process of our careful application of correct principles, it is a mysterious paradox of God’s love:

“But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”  (Ephesians 2:4-10)

This is the work of religion…

“Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you.  Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.  They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.  Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.  (Colosians 2:18-20)

This is the work of faith…

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds?  Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.  If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?  In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.  But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good!  Even the demons believe that—and shudder.  You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?”  (James 2:14-20)

Christianity, authentic Christian faith, is about love and not manipulation.  Jesus told his disciples:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”  (John 13:34-35)

Is Gothard a false teacher?

I wish matters like this were as simple as the Dead Sea salt kiosk where it was quite obvious I was being manipulated.  My initial reaction is that Bill Gothard is a false teacher.  It is not because he does not have some good insights or points either.  I was reminded of the time when Jesus rebuked Peter, saying “get behind me, Satan!” (Matthew 16:23)  Peter went on to be a powerful example of God’s grace.

I worry about the tendency of fundamentalist’s to ‘circle the wagons’ when it comes to someone who claims to uphold ‘Biblical principles’ and conservative values.  The same people who repost scary internet memes about “Charlie Charlie” will welcome a man like Gothard into their church or home without stopping to consider that he could be a false teacher and potential traitor to the Gospel.

“For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.”

That above is part of the warning Marcus Tullius Cicero gave in Roman times.  He was speaking about threats to nations or governments from within them, but his words could also easily apply to the church today.  We need to be aware of the enemy within the gates.  Satan was described as subtle, are we looking for the subtle deception or only the obvious threat?

As far as Gothard, I have stepped back from my initial reaction.  I am content to let God judge him and his teachings.  However, for myself I will go to another source of authority rather than him, I believe there is a primary source greater than even the best of commentators and it is that wisdom I seek.  For you who teach, I leave this:

“Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”  (James 3:1)

Be careful teachers what you teach!

Advertisements

Good Men Do Not Blame Women

Standard

The claim ‘based in actual events’ is used to give credibility to a dramatization of a story.  One might take the phrase to mean that the portrayal of an event is basically accurate or true.

But to me the claim is a warning to do my own research.

In some cases great liberties have been taken in the storytelling—and sometimes to the point that there is little resemblance to the actual events it is supposedly ‘based’ on.

Likewise, authentic Christian faith and a Bible ‘based’ tradition are two distinct things and sometimes entirely different things. 

Bible ‘based’ is not always Christ centered

There are many organizations that advertise their promotion of ‘Biblical’ principles, they give the impression of having real spiritual authority, and yet very little of what they offer seems based in real Christian love or the actual example of Jesus Christ. 

Christian leadership is to emulate the example of Jesus.  Christian leadership is supposed to be about serving others with a heart of humility.  A good leader is one who takes responsibility (in love) for things not even their own fault and will take punishment upon themselves rather than delegate the blame.

Unfortunately many twist the Scripture turning it on its head and copying the very example of those whom Jesus condemned. They clamor for power and position over others, yet when time comes for accountability they find everyone but themselves to blame.

Good leadership takes responsibility.

According to the book of Genesis there was a man.  This man was given a garden with two trees, one the “tree of life” and the other the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” with instructions by God not to eat the fruit of the latter tree. 

In the familiar account both man and woman disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit.  But, when confronted for his own sin, the man responds:

“The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” (Genesis 3:12 NIV) 

Sounds pretty true to life, huh? 

Instead of taking responsibility for their own actions many men will look for someone else to blame.  I know of one man who blamed his own obesity on the meals his wife cooked.  I know many other men who blame women for their own sexual sins and lust.  This, coupled with a few (misused) Biblical proof texts, has become a justification for all types ‘modesty’ requirements for women.

A shameful example of an immodest man.

I was talking to a friend recently, a woman raised in a conservative Mennonite community, who recalls a three hour meeting over the issue of a couple buttons being closed on her sweater. 

I had to ask twice about the buttons being closed, because it didn’t make sense (even to a person like me raised around this type of mindset) that closed buttons would be a problem. 

I’m still perplexed… 

I would guess the particular group had a standard of a loose outer garment for women and buttons made it too tight? 

Who knows?

Whatever the case, this is an all too common scenario in traditional ‘Bible based’ communities and amounts to spiritual abuse. 

In the story I told the man huffing and puffing was an elderly ‘bishop’ (I use the apostrophes because I don’t think the title of respect is deserved) and the one he was calling rebellious and a “whore” was a teenager. 

The man should be rebuked, once for being a creep who was ogling teenage girls and again for being completely antithetical to the example of Jesus Christ.

A modest mistake and a big problem of interpretation.

Modesty is an obsession in conservative churches.  I’ve heard more sermons on the topic than I care to mention and almost always focused disproportionately on matters of women’s clothing. 

These constant reminders may make one think that the Bible must be similarly preoccupied.  Interestingly the word “modesty” is found only once in the entire Bible.

However, while the word “modesty” is found only once in English translations, the Greek word translated as modesty is actually used twice.  It is used once speaking about women and later in reference to men.  The first usage is in 1 Timothy 2:9 quoted below in King James Version English:

“In like manner also, that women adorn (kosmein) themselves in modest (kosmio) apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array…”

This is the Greek it was translated from:

ωσαυτως και τας γυναικας εν καταστολη κοσμιω μετα αιδους και σωφροσυνης κοσμειν εαυτας μη εν πλεγμασιν η χρυσω η μαργαριταις η ιματισμω πολυτελει

I am not an expert on Greek (so I do encourage everyone to study the language themselves) but I do know that there is an interesting repetition that is not carried over as clearly in the English translation.  I’ve been told it could translate better as “women should get themselves in order in ordered apparel.” 

Apparently it is an idea that describes soldiers arranged in their ranks. It also has similarity to “cosmos” or the idea of the order in the universe. That is what makes “orderly” a good alternative translation. 

I asked a Russian speaking friend to translate the word from her Russian language Bible and she translated it as neatness. So the writer is conveying an idea of neat and orderly attire, perhaps like a professional or dignified person.

The same Greek word is used later in 1 Timothy 3:2 as quality of leadership.  It is translated as “respectable” in the New International Version and translated as follows in the King James Version English:

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour (kosmion), given to hospitality, apt to teach…”

The whole idea of modesty (in a Biblical usage) meaning more coverage to prevent lust is wrong and is a glaring example of reading a presupposition back into a text.  The idea is actually more to the effect of neatness, orderliness or respectability and not of concealment of body for sake of protection from the lusts of men.

(More good thoughts on the Biblical idea of modesty from a female perspective…)

Unfortunately there are many teachers out there who use a few words from the Bible to build their own rigid prescriptions. Literature from Bill Gothard, for example, encourages victims of sexual abuse to blame themselves and is basically rationalizing abuse as a product of female immodesty or rebellion from parents and God’s will.

It is never the responsibility of women to control male impulses.

Jesus spoke directly to matters of lust—he gave no excuse to irresponsible and leering men:

“…I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.  It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”  (Matthew 5:28-29)

Even Bible literalists may dismiss that as hyperbolic.  But even as that could be the case, the message is pretty clear about where responsibility for sin of lust lies and Jesus offers the solution. There is no excuse given for men, no blame he puts on women and no uncertainty of terms: Men are responsible for their own thought life, not women. 

Men who point a finger of blame at women are doubling their sin. 

A man who blames a woman is both guilty of the lust and also guilty of false accusation. They are like king Saul who blamed his disobedience against God on the will of the people. (1 Samuel 15) They are opposite of a man after God’s heart (Acts 13:22) like David who did not make excuses when confronted for his sin. Men who blame women are failures of Christian leadership and may need to be cut off until they repent of their false testimony.

Jesus did not give an example of a patriarchal tyrant who could not be questioned and then always blames others when things go wrong. No, Jesus led by self-sacrifice, he took responsibility for sins that were not even his own—the sins of the world—and brought grace to every situation. That is the example of real Christian leadership.

The Bible might be a basis for some to excuse their own failures and justify their own abuses, but good Christian men do not ever blame others for their own sin. Beware of those who claim to be based in the Bible and yet lack the evidence of the attitude of Jesus Christ.

What’s in a word?

Standard

Words are interesting things.  The word “gay” for example.  According to my grandpa it once just meant happy and excited.  In Webster’s 1828 edition dictionary it carries the same basic idea.  However, compare that definition to those found in modern dictionary and the change is significant.

Words change in meaning.  Words like “retarded” to describe a person have been replaced with terms like “special needs” by those trying to soften the label.  But as a result, now saying “he’s ‘special’…” takes a whole new meaning and doesn’t imply greater or better.  Changing the labeling word has not removed the stigma associated with mental handicap.

Are Black Men Thugs?

The word “thug” is another word that has seemed to have evolved in meaning.  It once meant “ruffian” or a murderous criminal and yet lately it is often used for a much more specific group of people.  Thug seems the new favorite word to describe a young black person involved in a violent confrontation and that has raised the hackles of numerous social commentators who say it is a racist code word.

Richard Sherman, the ever so outspoken Seattle Seahawks cornerback, put it plainly when he suggested that the word “thug” is the new N-word. 

I do not go as far as some do, I do not believe it is a word used exclusively for young black men, and I do not believe all who use it intend it with a racial connotation.  I am doubtful President Obama or Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the mayor of Baltimore, meant their usage of “thug” as racist and believe we should give all people the same benefit of doubt regardless of skin color.

That said, that doesn’t mean those who are describing “thug” as a new racist code word are totally wrong either.  I myself began to suspect something amiss with the word before it became a topic of widespread outrage and media hand wringing.  It was because of overzealous spam posts of conservative (white) friends that I began to wonder about the usage.

Will the Real Thug Please Stand Up!

A story, “INSTANT JUSTICE: Black Thug Tries to Bully ‘Little’ White Teen…BAD IDEA,” links a video showing a white teen mercilessly beating a black teen.  I can hardly see the justice in it.  Furthermore, if “thug” is just a general term for a violent person, why is the more violent of the two in the video only a “white teen” and not also a thug?  Hitting a dazed opponent seems thuggish behavior to me.

Another story, “High School Thug Bullies Classmate for ‘Talking White’ — Doesn’t End Well for Him,” shows one black teen harassing another and things turn violent.  Again race is the topic.  Again the one delivering the beating is the “classmate” and not labeled as a “thug” like the other guy.  It is a bit murkier because both involved are black.  But nevertheless you have “thug” versus “white” in the title and a curiously sympathetic accompanying article.

A third video, “NY Thug Picks Fight With Wrong Trucker, Gets Beating Of A Lifetime,” also starts after the fight has already began (removing context) and again the word “thug” is only used to describe the black participant.  Again the suggestion seems to be that the beating was a justified response.

Why is a young man described as “black thug” or “thug” and not just as a bully, harasser, instigator, etc?

I can’t read the minds of those who posted the videos.  But the framing of these stories does cause me to wonder about the intent in sharing them.  It would be as strange as a title, “Offended Young People Provoked by Thug Police,” to a story about the Baltimore rioters pummeling officers with rocks.  There would seem to be an intent to bias the reader at very least.

The (Thuggish) Hypocrisy on Both Sides…

Not every use of “thug” carries an extra racial overtone.  I believe it would not be fair to characterize it as a racist term or all those who use it as racists.  It is unfair to assume every person who uses a certain word has loaded it up the same as you do.

The word “racist” itself can be used in a prejudicial and unjust way.  The usage of the term “racist” to describe an offending white person is probably as damaging to them as any other contemptuous and derisive term.  Words like “privilege” and “redneck” are also questionable.  They are words used to categorize people and often unfairly.  Sure, many people use those terms as descriptive or even as terms of endearment, but the same is also true of “thug” and the N-word. 

In fact, the popularity of the word “thug” used to describe young black urbanites could have come in part to use of the word as a self-description: 

image

image

image

Understandably is is different when a word is used as derogatory and not as a term of endearment.  But it should also not be a surprise when descriptions we use for ourselves are picked up in popular dialog and become a nucleus for stereotypes.

Making ‘Thug’ a Taboo Word Is NOT the Answer.

I am reminded of the wise words of W.E.B. DuBois in reply to Roland A. Barton in 1928 about the topic of names (please take the time to read the whole letter) and his solution:

“Your real work, my dear young man, does not lie with names. It is not a matter of changing them, losing them, or forgetting them. Names are nothing but little guideposts along the Way. The Way would be there and just as hard and just as long if there were no guideposts, but not quite as easily followed! Your real work as a Negro lies in two directions: First, to let the world know what there is fine and genuine about the Negro race. And secondly, to see that there is nothing about that race which is worth contempt; your contempt, my contempt; or the contempt of the wide, wide world.”

As an alternative to abolishing words (that will soon replaced by new words to fill the vacuum) and being offended at every turn: Be the solution.  The solution, of course, is to live outside of the labels used to box us in and beyond identities built around race.  The solution ultimately is for everyone to do unto others what they want others to do to them (Luke 6:31) and abandoning their right to retaliation.  Be what you want others to be.

Words come and go, so don’t let them define you!

An Object Beside the Road

Standard

“Delicious!”  A man yells, from a grassy knoll to those passing back and forth on the road below, as he points in the direction of a large structure beside him.  He excitedly invites the travelers to join him in celebration of deliciousness.

Another beside that man extols the virtue of “home cooked” and describes images on the structure as being nutritious food.  She implores, “come dine with me!”  Then, in a hushed voice, she tells the travelers who listen that the guy yelling delicious is a simpleton and there’s much more to be told about the object than that one word.  She hands the traveler a chunk of the structure to eat.

Others stand very near the structure seemingly oblivious to their surroundings.  They bow their heads reverently as they memorize portions of the structure.  They ignore the travelers while reading ritualistically. Some carefully catalog and categorize the colors, pictures, shapes and the sequence of letters on the object. Amid their detailed analysis, they warn each other about those who got into discussions with travelers that were led away and distracted from studying by the groups furthest from the structure.

To the left of the guy yelling “delicious” sits a group sitting smugly in the shade of the object.  One tells the others, “it is just wood and canvas and intended as a place to shelter.”  They discuss together the materials that the structure is constructed of and theorize the process of how it was built.  And, other than lofty arguments over how to distribute the available protection of the shelter, this group rests confidently knowing they better understand the purpose of the object than the others.

Just then another traveler rounds the bend, he looks at the reverenced structure, utters the words, “delicious home cooked food just ahead.”  And then attempts conversation with the others about the meaning of the structure. For his perspective on the structure (that it is a marker pointing ahead rather than a destination point or object of worship) he is ridiculed as a dreamer, condemned as dangerous and ignored as boring.  Eventually, with night falling, he tells the other travelers, “follow me to the restaurant advertised on the billboard.”  They leave the object beside the road.

Those sitting left of the structure shrug and continue their lofty discussion.  The guy yelling delicious is now dancing with tears running down his face having forgotten about the travelers already.  The rest of those gathered on the knoll lament the lack of dedication to the structure.  Some double down on their efforts to worship the structure, they warn all the more passionately against ever leaving the structure and continue trying to find their sustenance in the structure.

Meanwhile, just down the road, as the sun slips beneath the horizon, two travelers sit comfortably at a table eating a home cooked meal. “Delicious!” One traveler says to the others…

Vaccination and Causes of Nepal Earthquake

Standard

There was an earthquake in Nepal several weeks ago. 

Most would probably agree that earthquakes are caused by sudden movements in the earth’s crust and are satisfied with a scientific explanation.

However, some are not satisfied with that and turn to more creative interpretations of the ground shaking phenomenon.  One man, an Iranian cleric, claimed earthquake is linked to promiscuous women and gave Islam as the solution.  Another woman, a Hindu, offered this explanation: “Rahul Gandhi eats beef and goes to the holy shrine without purifying himself, the earthquake was bound to happen.”  And, finally, a US pastor, wrote linking topic of pagan shrines and the earthquake. 

So, three different people representing three different religions and three different reasons why the earthquake happened.  However, all three have in common a similar logic.  They share an idea that one thing was happening (promiscuity or meat eating or paganism) and therefore the next thing (an earthquake) thing happened.  It is the logic of correlation implying causation.

Those who study logic recognize the potential logical fallacy.  The correlation does not imply causation in this case nor does it in others like it.  It is completely possible that the earthquake would have happened regardless of what people did or did not do.

And, until a person can provide good research that links one to the other, it is not reasonable to conclude a link exists between earthquakes and immorality.

Blaming Vaccines For Childhood Developmental Problems

Vaccines have become fodder for the same type of thinking that blames immorality for geological phenomenon.  If a child is vaccinated and later a disability or medical condition arises some parents will attribute it to the vaccines. 

Parents trust their own perception.  From what they can recall the problems did not begin until after the vaccination and therefore must be somehow linked to the vaccine.  In their search for a link many will take anecdotes as evidence and proof of a link.  Unfortunately, even a hundred anecdotes showing one thing happened after another is proof of nothing besides sequence of events and not even suggestive of a causal link. 

It would be no different from me telling a story of how a friend changed the oil in his car and two weeks later the engine blew up.  Sure, there could be a link between an oil change and problems that develop later in a few cases.  For example, if the mechanic left the oil plug loose, the plug fell out, the oil drained and without lubrication the bearings seized. 

However, that doesn’t mean a recent oil change caused the headlights burn out in your own car.  Even if a dozen other people had mechanical breakdowns happen within weeks of an oil change there’s still no proof of link.  And the same is true of vaccines and disabilities or medical conditions that develop later on.  The link we make between two events is not proof that one caused the other. 

Yes, there is a possibility vaccines have sides-effects or unintended consequences, but that doesn’t justify the assumption that anything that happens after a vaccination is caused by the vaccination.  A link needs to be established that explains step by step how one leads to the other or it is nothing but speculation. 

A Desperate Search for Explanation Leads Misattributed Blame

It is understandable that a parent would blame something like vaccines for anything bad that happens afterwards.  The idea of sticking a child with a needle seems unpleasant and unnatural to begin with.  Add to that the general mistrust of educated people and profitable endeavors in some circles.  But, be that as it is, sometimes seemingly healthy children hide problems that would develop later on whether they vaccinate or not. 

I know a family who had a child that appeared healthy and later died after a series of seizures.  Since the problems started some time after being vaccinated they decided not to vaccinate their future children.  Their unvaccinated second child was completely healthy.  If I stopped there that could be mistaken as evidence.  But, sadly, it wasn’t that simple, their next two unvaccinated children developed the similar problems to the first vaccinated child.

Most of us probably understand the absurdity of trying to pin blame for an earthquake on eating meat or unislamic behavior or pagan shrines.  But many do make the mistake of confusing correlation with causation in other areas.  We need to be aware of our own vulnerability to this type of thinking and be on the look out for the fallacy: Correlation does not imply causation.

As enticing as an explanation is, bad logic does not trump good science, and we need to know the difference or we will be blown about by the winds of our feelings and intuitions.

Faith: I Believe, So Help Me To Believe!

Standard

The Pharisees were content because they were successful and could afford to believe they were righteous.  They were people who studied the law carefully and followed it diligently.  They had no lack of missionary zeal and devotion, they had titles, love of families and other wealth.

But these religious people with all the answers lacked one thing and it seems something that is still missing in religious traditions.  Everything they did they had accomplished on their own strength.  There was no room in their life for radical faith that believes the impossible.  No, they were content with only what they could understand and rejected anything more.

As I look around the Christian religious landscape today I could ask the same question Jesus did at the end of this story in Luke 18:1-8:

“Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought.  And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’  “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think,  yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’”  And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says.  And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off?  I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?

I am certain Jesus would find many religiously devoted today.  I sure he would find those confident in their theology, their ‘Biblical’ standards and dogmas.  There are plenty of self-proclaimed experts with all of the right answers who pound pulpits and fill pews.  But would Jesus find faith real and unadulterated?

What is faith?

I believe this account in Mark 9:14-29 describes it:

“When they came to the other disciples, they saw a large crowd around them and the teachers of the law arguing with them. As soon as all the people saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with wonder and ran to greet him.  “What are you arguing with them about?” he asked.  A man in the crowd answered, “Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not.”   “You unbelieving generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.”  So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.  Jesus asked the boy’s father, “How long has he been like this?”  “From childhood,” he answered. “It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.”   “‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for one who believes.”    Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”  When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the impure spirit. “You deaf and mute spirit,” he said, “I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.”  The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, “He’s dead.”  But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up.  After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”   He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”

I am not certain if the ailment of the boy would be considered a medical condition today.  But Jesus does seem to indicate that it was an incurable condition by any means other than prayer (or prayer and fasting) and therefore the healing was a miracle.

This is not a case for “faith healing” as a prescription for all illness.  It was a special circumstance where there was a condition that was impossible to cure by any other means.  So to turn this story into a reason to shun modern medicine is to vastly miss the point. 

If the light bulb burns out at church it only requires a budget or funds to replace it and not necessarily faith.  Faith is not about forcing God to do what is clearly within our own power to do.  Faith is doing all we can, investing our everything in something unseen, and having the outcome uncertain.

Faith is More than Reasonably Committed

There was the widow at Zarephath (1 Kings 17: 7-24) who used the last of her supplies to make bread for the prophet Elijah and had her needs supplied miraculously for her faithfulness.  The poor woman mentioned in Mark 12:41-44 is also an example of radical faith in action:

“Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.  Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.  They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

It requires very little faith for a wealthy business person to give of his millions when their needs are already supplied abundantly.  But faith, radical faith, is when a person is able to commit their all to an unbelievable promise.  Most would only contribute their all to a sure thing and not gamble it all on something unseen.

However, faith, according to Hebrews 11:5-6, is an essentially component, even the backbone of the message of the Gospel:

“By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

A religiously devoted person could go their entire life without need of faith.  If they only ever ask or achieve what is readily within their reach they have proven their dedication.  For some they put in their duty, but they don’t truly believe in a God of the impossible and live solely in their own understanding.

I am not content with religious devotion.  There is no sensible middle ground of belief without faith or it is falsehood.  For me, and according to the Bible, true faith is all or nothing proposition: It is radical faith or none at all. 

And yet, because we can never have enough faith to save our own selves, faith is a paradoxical product of grace.

Do you have faith?