Racism and Zimmerman-Martin Verdict

With the verdict of the State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman in, the nation reacts. Maybe we shouldn’t say “the nation.” Maybe we should say groups of people. The problem is when we start identifying those groups. The groups are not divided by principle. They aren’t divided by patriotism. They aren’t even divided by purpose. They are divided by race.

Isn’t it interesting how the media picks and choses what to flood our senses with? There are literally hundreds of shootings in this country. There are literally hundreds of trials across this great country where the State is charging someone with murder. In fact, 37 days after George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin in Florida, Cordell Jude shot and killed Daniel Adkins in Arizona in what has been called the "Reverse Trayvon Martin Case." But, other than a brief CNN clip and a Yahoo News blurb no major media publicized the case. Yet, the problem is not just the media. In my opinion, and I believe the evidence is in the results, the media is only helping identify the problem. Yes, in some ways they may be fueling the fire but the reality is if there wasn’t a fire there then fueling it wouldn’t produce anything. With that said, I do believe the media has a responsibility in what, how, when, where, and why they do what they do. In my opinion, the media has failed miserably in being responsible. In reality, the purpose of the news media has changed in my lifetime from reporting the news to selling the news. When money is the bottom line we need to remember, “the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil.” (1 Tim 6:10)

No matter how many times people say it’s not about race, the evidence in the results proves the opposite. The problem is that this great country is still divided along racial and ethnical lines. Prejudices are hard, if not impossible, to put to death. The problem is not the color of ones skin being used to describe and identify. If you are called upon to give identifying physical traits of an individual you would use gender, skin color, size, weight, and any other physical characteristic (tattoos, color of hair, scares, etc.). The problem is when someone is being treated or expected to be treated a certain way BECAUSE of the color of one’s skin.

There are all kinds of physical characteristics that carry prejudices. Some are not as major as others but all are pre-judgments about someone because of a physical characteristic. For instance, people with red hair have short tempers; females with blonde hair are dingbats; there is something wrong with people that get tattoos; there are literally thousands of pre-judgments that we make about people when we see them. But that is not the same thing as being racist. Racism is about prejudices, discrimination, inequality, superiority, bigotry and oppression.

How difficult is it in general to cross the rift between White and Black in America? Well, in the four years of the Civil War (1861-1865) it is estimated that at least 620,000 people died; roughly 360,222 Union forces (fighting to abolish slavery) and 258,000 Confederate forces (fighting to keep slavery). (I know that is a simplified reason for the War.) Included in the figure are the estimated 40,000 African-Americans who lost their lives in the War. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was passed by Congress and signed by the President it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1883, which ruled that Blacks were “beings of an inferior order”, and could never become citizens of USA. (Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). It took 100 tumultuous years after the Civil War before The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would make any real change for the African-American.

Somehow through all these human-rights issues it has been perceived that the majority is always prejudice toward the minority. And that perception may very well be based upon the facts of human history. When one world power conquers another, the people of that land become subservient to their captors, if not slaves of their captors. That’s the way of the world. That’s the way of war. It happened to Israel along with other nations under the Egyptian Empire and the Roman Empire. It happened under Mohammad and Islam in the Middle East and it happened to the Native Indians and Spaniards in North America under the United States of America. Now, in parts of this great country where the Hispanics out number the Anglo there are accusations of perceived prejudices against the Anglo. It seems to be the way of humanity. I think we can accurately predict that if Blacks were the majority and Whites the minority that racism would not vanish. I would just switch races.

There is only one Kingdom on earth where racial/ethnical prejudice is not supposed to be. That is the Kingdom of God. Unfortunately, through the failure of sinful men, of which we all are, the church has not always upheld the orders of her King: “There is no distinction between Jew and Greek.” (Rom 10:12) “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28) Since the “love of Christ controls us” we are to “recognize no one according to the flesh.” (2 Cor 5:14-16) In the Kingdom of Christ we are not to let the color of someone’s skin be a prejudgment. As the children’s song declares the truth:

“Jesus loves the little children,

All the children of the world.

Red and Yellow, Black and White,

All are precious in His sight,

Jesus loves the little children of the world.”

And we might add in there Brown and every color of every people on the face of the earth.

I don’t believe the church is to be color-blind, I believe we are to be color-celebrating. In the Family of God I have brothers and sisters who are White, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, and every other color of people on earth who have recognized Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We are completely and totally equal in every way. I chose, in Christ, to celebrate the distinctiveness of God’s saving grace and the sweet fellowship of unity found in Christ Jesus. There are not only color differences but also cultural differences from which we can learn and celebrate. Not only am I transformed to see this reality in the church but also I am transformed to see this reality outside the church. I am not to be a respecter of people. If all who name the name of Jesus as Lord and Savior would submit to their King in this reality there would be a significant change in racism worldwide.

I am a White male who grew up at a time and in a place where my physical characteristics of race were the majority. I admit and confess that I do not know how it feels or what it means to be discriminated against simply because of my race or ethnicity. I married a Mexican who grew up as a minority in our town and experienced prejudicial discrimination simply because of her ethnicity. I am incapable of empathizing with what she felt because I have not experienced it. We have three children, twin girls and one boy (all grown now). Our son looks much more Mexican than his palely White sisters. He has suffered at the hands of those who are prejudice simply because of his skin color. I cannot really empathize with how he feels when derogatory remarks are made toward him because he is Mexican. My own grandmothers, though they always treated my wife and children with unconditional love and acceptance, warned me before I married that my children would be half-breeds. Even with that, I, as an Anglo, do not understand the disparaging treatment of prejudices because it was not my half of the breeding that was considered a negative.

All of that is to say, I don’t believe anyone can fully understand how it feels to be racially/ethnically discriminated against unless they have lived in a society where they are the minority and, as a minority, have suffered racial/ethnical discrimination. It is one thing to experience pockets of racial discrimination but it is totally different when racial discrimination is a societal distinctive. By that I mean, a White person may grow up in a Black neighborhood and experience racial discrimination in that pocket of society. But that is not the same thing as the racial discrimination toward Blacks that can be found, in general, in the social structure of America, especially in the South.

With that being said there are a few things that I have observed with the Zimmerman-Martin trial and subsequent reactions. They are my opinion and, as with all of us, I can only view things through the lens of my own experiences and that can affect the way I see something. I am not saying my observations are the ONLY accurate conclusion. Nor am I saying that they are absolutely correct. Maybe, putting this out there will help in the dialogue and help in bringing some healing to racial/ethnical prejudices in America. Of course, if it is a true dialogue then there are at least two things that must happen. One, all must be willing to take ownership of our feelings/thoughts and express them appropriately. Two, all must be willing to listen and hear all in the conversation.

The media has sensationalized this case based on race because that is what sells. NBC edited the Zimmerman’s call to the non-emergency number of Sanford police department so as to highlight race. They made it sound like Zimmerman was conjecturing on race without being asked when, in fact, the dispatcher asked him to identify the race of Martin. The mainstream media continues to sensationalize the case with the way they frame questions and interviews around race. I watch a lot of news. Fox News has a slant that is more consistent with my political point of view. So, I probably watch Fox News 70% of the time. Yet, I want to be well rounded and hear the views of others that are coming from a different perspective, so I watch CNN probably 20% of the time, MSNBC maybe 10% of the time, and the big three (ABC, CBS, NBC) about 10% of the time. Although I’ve learned a lot from these other news sources, it appears to me that the more liberal the media outlet the more they focus on a racial conspiracy. Does that mean the liberal media is more against racism and are just emphasizing the injustice toward Blacks or are they exploiting the Blacks by selling the sensational? Are they reporting the extent of the racial divide or are they encouraging more racial divide? To me, it’s not that they are just reporting on racial/ethnical prejudice but that they are inciting the division. Also, it seems to me that the media is doing nothing to help bring healing to the racial divide.

The groups trying to capitalize off of the media coverage are not just racially motivated. There is the group who is seeking to overthrow the Stand Your Ground law. There are also people who are trying to use this as a reason for Gun Control. Of course, the counterparts of these groups are arguing their side as well. It is my opinion that this case has little to do with either one of these issues. In my opinion we have already submitted too many of our freedoms in the environment of a false peace. It is like the Scriptures indicate that even in the name of God there are those who proclaim “peace, peace, But there is no peace.” (Jer 6:14) Without a Stand Your Ground law and the Second Amendment we are reduced to the mercy of the merciless. Are we to huddle in our houses defenselessly awaiting the criminal? Are we to retreat from every confrontation? Does it not already seem that our laws are more for the criminal than they are the victims? Even after they are convicted the criminals still have significant rights under the law. Is this really about a law or about guns? I don’t think so. Those who believe Zimmerman probably think the law did exactly what it was intended to do. If he had not had the right to carry a gun and defend himself, he likely would have been beaten, maimed, and possibly killed. Those who don’t believe Zimmerman, say if he hadn’t been allowed to have a gun he couldn’t have killed Martin. And if there was no Stand Your Ground law Zimmerman would be charged with murder 2 or, at least, manslaughter because he didn’t retreat when he had a chance. So, is the issue the law or the gun? NO! The issue is whether you believe the system worked or failed. Was Zimmerman innocent until proven guilty? Or, was he judged by the media as guilty because of the color of his skin and Martin’s skin? Is not finding him guilty BECAUSE of the color of skin also a racial/ethnical prejudice?

Let’s play “what if”—what if Martin really did beat down Zimmerman and bashed his head into the sidewalk? Is it that hard to believe that a 17-year-old male (looks more like 20), who is 5’ 11” tall and 158 lbs. could beat down a 28-year-old, 5’ 7” tall and 185 lbs. young man? Maybe even asking the question that way shows a bias. Okay, what if Zimmerman instigated and started the fight. Zimmerman was roughly 11 years older, basically 30 pounds heavier, even though he was 4” shorter. Is it hard to believe that a 28-year-old male neighborhood watch coordinator in a neighborhood that has been hit hard with robberies, is overly suspicious, easily angered, and highly confrontational toward anyone off the pathway and in the yard of an area that is known for robberies, and someone he suspects is “up to no good” because “it's raining and he's just walking around, looking about?” Neither scenario is hard to believe. What is hard to reconcile is what that characteristic of Zimmerman would sound like and how that type of characteristic might behave in that scenario and what the facts point to. If that painted an accurate picture Zimmerman I’m surprised he didn’t stop and confront Martin when he first saw him. I’m surprised by the tone and quality of his voice. His voice is soft, a little high-pitched, calm, and almost a little feminine. There is one point on the call, when Zimmerman says that Martin is “coming to check me out” and he sees something in Martin’s hand. That Zimmerman sounds a little frightened even. He wanted the police to hurry. That doesn’t sound like someone that is out looking for a Black kid to kill.

The “what if” game is a game that never ends. What if Zimmerman never got out of his truck? What if Martin had walked straight home instead of loitering? What if Zimmerman hadn’t carried a gun? What if Martin wasn’t wearing a hoodie? What if Zimmerman had been Black and Martin White? What if…what if…what if… The “what if” game gets us nowhere!

Interestingly, all the attorneys in the trial, except for the attorney representing the Martin family, were White. Are there no qualified attorneys in Florida that are Black or Brown? All the jurors, save the one dark Hispanic woman, were White women. It was an all women jury! It seems to me that the more they tried to make it not about race the more they did things that were potentially racially explosive. I think the question “Do you think if those jurors would have been six Black women there would have been a different verdict?” is a legitimate question. It is also a question that shows just how suspicious we are toward racial divisions. Did five White women make a decision based on the facts presented or the color of Martin’s skin? Would five Black women make a decision based on facts or the color of skin? If, in any situation, a decision is made based exclusively on the color of someone’s skin, can we not agree that there is racial/ethnical prejudice? Can we not also agree that not every decision made is about racial/ethnical prejudice even when there are different races involved?

The prosecution seemed to base their final argument not on facts but on knowing “what was in the heart of Zimmerman.” This is really an impossibility to know. There are only two people who can know a person’s heart, the person and God. And no one really knows his or her own heart in every matter. We can easily deceive ourselves. It is true that Zimmerman obviously had problems in 2005 with drinking, violence, and relationships. He was arrested for shoving an officer and he also had a restraining order filed and granted against him by his ex-fiancée, against whom he also filed and received a retraining order. In 2006 he received a speeding ticket. Yet, in this case, though the State desperately tried to, they could not find any factual evidence to prove Zimmerman guilty. The Law either has facts and evidences that will reasonably convict or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t bring a charge against someone. The process of the arrest and the lack of evidence presented could easily lead one to think that the State of Florida may have felt pressured, based on the publicity of the case, to bring Zimmerman to trial.

After the trial, all the demanding for justice is not just. Was it an “unnecessary killing” as Eric Holder proclaims? Sure it was. Aren’t most killings unnecessary? What could have changed? In order of prevention: The first thing, from the testimony, was that if Martin had not been loitering around a house there was a good chance that Zimmerman would not have suspected him. Secondly, after Zimmerman stopped at the clubhouse and called the police’s non-emergency phone number, if Martin would have walked past Zimmerman’s truck and made a beeline for his father house there would have been no confrontation. Thirdly, if Martin was scared because a “creepy ass cracker” was following him, he could have called the police. Fourth, if Zimmerman had not got out of his truck, most likely there would not have even been a conversation between the two. (One juror has said Zimmerman “shouldn’t have gotten out of that car.”) Yet, getting out of that car was not against the law. Fifth, if Zimmerman had retreated to his truck when encouraged to by the dispatcher there possibly would have not been a confrontation. Still, even confronting someone in a neighborhood watch environment is not against the law. Was either one breaking the law? No. At least, not up to the point of violence. Were both exercising poor judgment? Maybe. But poor judgment isn’t against the law. The reality is that the only one who knows what happened that night is Zimmerman. Did Martin throw the first punch? Was Martin accosted first by Zimmerman? We may never know or we may already know. The jurors heard the evidence and believed the evidence pointed toward Zimmerman’s account. Under our justice system we must endure this as the truth. Our system may not be perfect but it has proven to be the best system for justice probably 99% of the time. Occasionally, because humans fail sometimes, our system convicts innocent people and frees guilty people. But regardless, “innocent until proven guilty” is the best system we have. And in this case Zimmerman was not proven guilty.

Was Martin profiled? Maybe. Is profiling the same thing as racial/ethnical prejudices? Absolutely not! It can be but it is not necessarily so. Is it not true that the gated neighborhood had recently had a rash of burglaries and potential violent encounters with young adult Black males in the past 15 months? Is it not reasonable at that point to profile an older teen Black male who is inside the gated community? Profiling at that point is not necessarily racial/ethnical prejudices. It could be simply motivated by racial/ethnical description. When the EMT examined Martin he had no ID on him. They reported he looked approximately 20 years old. He may not have looked like the twelve-year-old boy pictured by the media. I contend that in this case profiling is not synonymous with prejudice. The FBI, Stanford Police Department, and the Jurors came to the same conclusion after investigating all the evidence. They concluded that Zimmerman was not motivated by racial/ethnical prejudices. I think a legitimate question is “If Martin had had on clothing that is not associates with a culture that is problematic would he had been profiled?” In my mind, if I see someone on a dark street that is dressed and looks like trouble, I am going to profile him or her regardless of the color of his or her skin. Maybe part of the conversation needs to be the reality that the way you dress is the way you will be judged. If a “skin head” with a swastika tattoo walks down the street is he not going to be judged by his appearance? If Martin had been wearing a suite and carrying a brief case would Zimmerman had profiled him? Probably not even though the fact that he was a Black would have been more obvious. Could it be that appearance really does matter in society? I’m old enough to remember when wearing a pair jeans in the late 1950s through the early 1970s was prejudged in conjunction with James Dean in “Rebel Without a Cause.” Also, when males with long hair were pre-judged as a hippy, drug user, rebellious, etc.

It appears to me, agreeably, someone who does not have the experience of being racially discriminated against, that there are people in the Black community who have to continue racial division in order to continue their identity and maybe their income. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson seem to me to be in this camp. It is my opinion that they are not helping to bring healing to racial division but encouraging it. Their inflammatory rhetoric and political demands seems to be more harmful than helpful. There have been numerous Black leaders on the news including Eric Holder, US Attorney General and the former Mayor of New Orleans, Marc Morial, indicating that the jurors were wrong in their verdict. That what Zimmerman did was illegal. That he was wrong in profiling Martin. That Martin was just an innocent teenager murdered. Murdered because he was Black and Zimmerman was found Not Guilty because he was White-Hispanic. They said that because of the verdict they have had to have talks with their sons about behavior, profiling, and what to do in similar situations. Really! I have had that talk with my son, too.

Along with that conversation comes the explanation of why someone may be profiled. Not that it is fair but that there might be reasonable thought behind profiling. In the conversation with my son I included how he dressed and reacted to other people who are prejudice toward him will help determine the outcome. The prison system is over populated, with male Latinos and Blacks by far the prison majority. Is the legal system prejudice toward Browns and Blacks? I don’t know. Some studies show a disparity in arrest and charges of Browns and Blacks vs. Whites. Although, some studies show that Blacks and Browns are more likely to be arrested and charged there are others that report that Browns and Blacks are more likely to find leniency. There is also data to support that because there have been more research published involving Blacks in the legal system it can be over represented in the conclusion. (Do Race and Ethnicity Matter in Prosecution?) Undoubtedly, there are multiple studies of certain sectors of the country (i.e. NYC) where minorities are more likely to be targeted by law enforcement than Whites. (Crime, perceptions of crime and perceptions of crime-fighters) Yet, are there really enough facts to point toward a countrywide conspiracy toward Blacks and Browns? It’s hard to prove either way with statistics because statistics can be manipulated to say whatever is wanted. The one thing that all the statistics seem to point to is that minorities are more likely, per-capita, to commit violent crime. Some explain that by the difference in economics in the minority community. They say that minorities are poorer. Yet, is that a cause of the crime or is that the results of the crime? Also, if there is a societal conspiracy to keep minorities poor how do we reconcile that many minorities are some of the wealthiest people in America? As an example look at the Black entertainment industry: Bill Cosby, Opra Winfrey, Tyler Perry, Whitney Houston, Will Smith, James Earl Jones, and the list of film, television, and music industry stars goes on and on. Add on to that list minorities playing in Professional Sports.

Some minorities point to a discrimination in the education system that prevents them from being able to achieve a better economic life for their families and communities. But it is not clear whether the potential discrimination is because of a prejudicial education system or because of the community culture created by minorities. In high schools where African-American and Hispanics are the majority students report a higher percentage of being threatened or injured by a weapon than in Anglo or Native American populated schools. Though there was, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, factual discrimination in the public school system, since then there have been significant improvements in squelching that discrimination. In postsecondary education Blacks receive the majority of financial aid (92%) and the average largest amount of aid given. The research would indicate that in the past 35 years discrimination in the educational system has made great strides in assuring equality. (Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups) Yet, if the educational system points to anything in the Zimmerman-Martin case it identifies a troubled youth who was on his third expulsion from high school.

Another thing that brought this case undue publicity is President Obama giving public commentary on it. In my opinion it is beneath the position of the President to speak publicly about any particular case. Especially, when it is being publicized in a racial format. Also, I don’t think it helps when the Attorney General of the United States dedicates his entire speech to the NAACP questioning and destroying the faith in our justice system by undermining the process that had just been completed in the Zimmerman-Martin trial. In my opinion, when the highest official and other high officials in the US Government, all whom are Black, do not accept the results of our justice system they undermine the entire Republic for which the system identifies. Could it be that they want to politicize this case for their own political agenda? (i.e. Anti-Stand Your Ground law and Gun Control)

When listening to the prosecutions key witness, Rachel Jeantel, it reminded me of conversations I have had with White people who claim not to be racially/ethnically prejudice yet are disparaging toward people who are not White. Statements such as “you know how Mexicans are” or “Black people are just that way” when speaking negative about someone. Or maybe they see nothing wrong with describing Black people as Niger, Brown people as Spics, White people as Crackers or Asian people as Chinks. Yet, with Jeantel, we see that racial/ethnical prejudice is as much a part of the Black culture as it is the White. In what world is “creepy ass cracker” not a racial slur? Ms. Jeantel denied that it has racial connotations. Would not it have been seen as racial/ethnical prejudice if Zimmerman had said something derogatory about Martin in identifying his skin color? Maybe what he said shows that Martin could have been more racially motivated than Zimmerman. Isn’t it true that prejudices have no boundaries? They are not restricted just to the majority. Remember, the problem is when someone is being treated or expected to be treated a certain way BECAUSE of the color of their skin. Do not all racial/ethnical groups do this? Is it not true that there are Blacks that are racist? As well as Hispanics and Asians? I mean, it’s not just a White syndrome. It is a human problem.

If racism in America has not been resolved in over 150 years since the Civil War we are safe to assume it is not going to be solved anytime soon. There is no doubt that the racial divide between White and Black in America continues to find strength in the past reality of slavery and the over 100 years of oppression of the Blacks once slavery was abolished. It is understood that slavery and racial oppression was primarily in the Southern States but not limited to the South. There is no one alive today who was a slave owner or a slave. So, there are no firsthand experiencers of that era of our history. The point is, there is no one to hold responsible and there need be no one requiring retribution. It is history. If we learn from it we have a good chance not to repeat it. Now as far as the oppression of Blacks by Whites…. maybe we shouldn’t be so stereotypical. Were there not well over 300,000 Whites in the Civil War that literally gave their lives in order to provide freedom for Blacks? There have been remnants of Whites from the founding of America who have advocated equality in civil-rights for all colors of people. Still, it is hard for me to reconcile reasons for 100 years of racial oppression of the Black. What took White people so long to establish an equality of race? Why did it take such turmoil in the 1960s to initiate change in society?  Of course, I was born at the end of those 100 years and cannot contemplate the cultural milieu of America from 1865 to 1965. Still, have there not been astronomical advances in establishing an equality of race in America, especially since 1964? I mean, in 2008 America elected a Black man as the President of the United States of America. With Black making up roughly 13% of the population was it not the non-Black vote that put a Black man in the Oval Office?

I can only speak for myself and from my own perspective. I do not consider myself being racially/ethnically prejudice. Yet, I realize that self-awareness continues to come with an open mind and heart. Maybe we can all get to the place were we can willingly set down and have an honest dialogue. I must say that this case has truly highlighted the extent of the racial divide in America. I call on my fellow Whites to really try to understand, to listen and hear what the hearts of the African-American community, Hispanic community, Asian community, etc are saying. Realize that 1964 wasn’t that long ago. Can we not sympathize with minorities, especially Blacks, as to how they feel living in a society, in general, that has oppressed them? To try to understand how it must feel to be prejudicially profiled just because of skin color. Why minorities are probably more sensitive to racism than Whites. To learn from minorities what might be done to help. I call upon on the minorities to listen and hear the whole of the White community. I ask them to be honest about their own community’s cultural problems and take ownership for those things. To stop blaming the Whites for your problems and expecting to be venerated simply for being a minority. Sure there are plenty of Whites that are racially/ethnically prejudice. Some will never accept that the minority has equality with White. There are always going to be people like this. It is hard to ignore them but maybe we can reasonably and rationally marginalize those who will always be racist by not being baited into a reaction.

The solution to racism is don’t be a racist. Don’t prejudge someone because of the color of his or her skin. Don’t assume all Whites are racist. Don’t assume all Blacks are racist. (Because racism is just as alive and well in the Black community as it is in the White community.) In fact, the Bible has a very simple solution to the problem of racism.

      “In everything, therefore,

treat people the same way

you want them to treat you.”

(Mt 7:12)

Legally Acceptable Terrorism Against Our Children!

Here, in Norman, OK where I live, our city government spent over a million dollars to install massive speed bumps throughout neighborhoods to provide a perceivable safe place for kids to play. I say ‘perceivable’ because no kids are outside playing because speeding cars are not what threaten our children. Our neighborhoods have been robbed of kids playing outside, riding their bicycles, playing catch in the park, building forts in the wooded areas, walking to the convenient store, and learning how to live together in a free society. We’ve allowed the bad guys/gals to win by allowing pedophiles to live in our neighborhoods and terrorize our streets in perpetrating their perversions on our children again and again. Bullies have been allowed to turn into gangs that become terrorist against the freedoms of our children. Bullying has become a major problem and I don’t just mean verbal and emotional sufferings but like pedophiles, a very real physical threat of harm.

The reality is that we’ve allowed some very real terrorism to rob our children of the freedom that most adults over 40 grew up with. Fear of what might happen to our children if we let them outside without parental supervision is real. Older adults complain that kids these days set inside and play video games and watch television too much. Yet we adults are the ones who have allowed the bad guy/gal to win because we’ve become soft on punishment of those who would target the most vulnerable in society. We’ve allowed these terrorists to drive our children indoors and rob them of their freedom.

As for the pedophiles, whether you agree or not, the truth is that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. We may not want to go back to the “Old West” days but there were some things that our forefathers knew and did that provided a free society for families to raise their children in a safe environment. In the “Old West” crimes against the most vulnerable, children and women particularly, was met with swift and harsh punishment. Horse thieves, cattle rustlers, bank robbers, and murderers (those who would terrorize society) when caught met a swift and final punishment. Prisons were not overrun with offenders. Graveyards were reminders of what happens to those who preyed on the vulnerable.

Yes, I am proposing the death penalty for those who are pedophiles. If, those who would kidnap innocent children and rob them of their freedom were to meet a swift and a severe punishment of death it would deter others from doing the same. If the death penalty were carried out, pedophiles would not be registered sex offenders still terrorizing our neighborhoods looking for another opportunity to victimize a child. (In Norman, OK there are no fewer than 46 pedophiles registered with our law enforcement authority.) They would not be free to perpetrate their perversion on another child. A side benefit would be that tax dollars wouldn’t go to pay for lengthy trials and prison time with three prepared meals a day, climate controlled housing, cable television, workout rooms, education opportunities, etc.

If the bullies were dealt with swiftly and severely they would not be allowed to congregate into gangs. They would learn and be an example to others that bullying is not acceptable behavior in the society of the free. Take the bully at a young age, when their tendency to bully is manifested in the natural course of children playing, and correct him/her with swift gentle discipline. If they do not respond favorably with gentle discipline then swiftly use severe discipline. Maybe if a 10-year-old bully, who doesn’t respond to gentle discipline, spent a week or month in a juvenile detention center they would not grow up to be an adult bully who abuses his/her spouse and children. If bullies cannot control their aggressive behavior then they must be isolated away from society in prison. When a bully (for whatever reason) takes up a weapon in order to force his cruelty (such as mass murderers) on others then a swift and final penalty is appropriate.

If, we as a society began to take these legally acceptable forms of terrorism on our children seriously, our children would psychologically regain their value to society. They would not live in terror that the “boogey man” is still out there waiting to get them again. Their freedom would be restored and our neighborhoods would be alive with the laughter of children as they play outside. Society would benefit as children, who have learned to play together, grow up into adults and know how to get along with others, work together, and be good neighbors. Our society would be relieved of these legally acceptable terroristic attacks on our children.

Someone may say “that is not a very gracious response to those with psychological problems that cause him or her to be pedophiles or bullies.” My response is “I disagree, it is the most gracious response to our children that we can have.” I would not rejoice in their demise but I would support it for the betterment of society. If pedophiles and bullies had a zero tolerance in our society our children would regain a psyche of their value and the wonderment of freedom in a society that does not live in fear of these acceptable forms of terrorism.

Is it any wonder as to why children who have grown up with the tension of these forms of legal terrorism are now willing to give up more freedom in order for perceived safety? They have already had one aspect of their freedom taken from them for the perceived safety of a neighborhood with speed bumps. To give up their Second Amendment right in order to have a perceived safe environment is not that much of a stretch.

Asking people to give up some of their freedom in order to accommodate the perpetrators of crime is like putting speed bumps in neighborhoods where children no longer play outside. Perception can be the antithesis of reality.

Losing Our Understanding

When reading the Pew Research Report “The Decline of Marriage And Rise of New Families” (November 18, 2010) the thought came to me concerning how we as human beings try to justify our beliefs and behavior. We either justify our beliefs based upon something outside ourselves seen as authoritative or we justify them based upon something within ourselves seen as authoritative. For instance, some people may base their beliefs on traditions, like Tevye in Fiddler On The Roof or the Pharisees and scribes Jesus scolded in Matthew 15. Other people may find authority in the law of the land. As long as it’s legal it’s okay. Still, there are others who find their source in the authority of society, like politicians who change their positions based on public polls. For the Christians, the most familiar authority found outside of us is the Bible. However, there are others who find their confidence within their own reasoning. Humanism is a discipline that sets reason, ethics, and justice found within humanity while rejecting supernatural and religious ideas as a basis of morality and decision-making. Human knowledge, wisdom, understanding, intellect, etc. gives, in and of itself, authority for behavior. In other words, we as humans can justify our behavior by simply finding its justification within ourselves. This is our (humans) default way of justifying our actions.

Although there are some encouraging trends identified in the article, reading the changes in the views of marriage and family affirms the fact that human beings are social beings and, habitually, justifies their lifestyle by adjusting their belief system. For example, is it surprising that with the increase in divorce there is an increase in its acceptance? Or, that with the increase of cohabitation there is an increase it its acceptance? How about that with the value of traditional family declining the belief in traditional family values has declined as well. This is how we justify our actions by adapting our beliefs.

It reminds me of a principal that Paul talked about. “When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding.” (2 Co 10:12) We as human beings have the distinct capacity to deceive ourselves and lose our understanding. To lose understanding is to lose the ability to see something as it really is. It is to be devoid of the ability of abstract thought. It is to lose the ability to see something outside of our own justification of it. To lose our understanding is to lose our true north. We lose all absolutes. If enough people start saying there are no absolutes then how will we know which way is north, what color is red, or that 2+2=4? All that is right and wrong become so blurred that it appears there is no right and wrong. As more measuring and comparing take place the more understanding is lost.

We, as a society, have lost our understanding of the importance of marriage and family to our own society. Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) said, “As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.” Popular opinion has become our authority to justify our lifestyle. When we were kids and we wanted to do something that our parents didn’t want us to do we would say something like, “but everyone is doing it.” And our parents would say something like, “if everyone were jumping off a bridge would you do it too?” Well, the truth is we probably would. Unless we have some type of authority outside ourselves that gives us a belief that is strong enough to defy the measuring and comparing of ourselves to our society we will lose our understanding. Let’s put it like this, if enough people are getting a divorce or cohabitating together would you do it to? If enough people believe that a homosexual life style is morally equal to a heterosexual lifestyle would you agree? If society says that premarital sex is okay would you see no problem with premarital sex? If fidelity in marriage were seen as old fashion and unreasonable would you agree? The proof is in the article. The societal milieu of America over the past 50 years has steadily eroded away the external authority of the Bible, which empowered people to resist the seduction of humanistic justification. That which was once seen as wrong is now seen as okay.

Unfortunately, the church in America has done little to combat the decline of marriage and the importance of family in America. As true Christianity gave way to religiosity the church lost its empowerment to facilitate change in the culture. Religious institutions have become more identified with the world than impacting the world with Biblical authority. The primary way that the church in America has tried to deal with the eroding away of Biblical authority is condemning those who fail at keeping its (the church’s) rules and regulations. Condemnation has a tendency to push people away rather than pull people in. It has a tendency to over-emphasize truth and under-emphasize grace. This produces an isolated church. The secondary way the church in America has tried to deal with a society that is moving further away from a biblical oriented milieu is to embrace the changes within the church. Some may say the church has become soft on sin. This embracing has a tendency to over-emphasize grace and under-emphasize truth. It lowers the standards to allow humanity to be okay with its sinfulness. This produces an ineffective church. In many ways the church in America has become very much like the church in Corinth during the New Testament times.

The article proves another principle that is found in Paul’s writing. “Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”” (1 Co 15:33) Another report from Pew Research, “Second-Generation Americans” (February 7, 2013), among other things, looks at the differences between the beliefs of first generation immigrants and the children they raised to adulthood in America. They discover that the majority of immigrants are from either an Asian background or Hispanic background. The first generation immigrant from Asian or Hispanic countries, the ones who left the country they were raised in and came to the USA, have a much higher view of moral values than their second generation adult children who have been raised in America. The parents come to America with moral values that are typically more conservative. They raise their children with the intent of passing those moral values on. However, raising their children in the culture of America undermines the parent’s conservative moral values. Unfortunately, it appears that American society may be the bad company that corrupts good morals.

After reading this someone may ask, “Is there any hope?” The answer is, “Absolutely!” Be encouraged. God has never not been in control. (I know that is a double negative and that is bad English grammar.) Though we may not see His purpose, we can be assured that His purpose is being fulfilled. There are signs that the religiosity of the church in America is diminishing and true Christianity is on the rise. We didn’t get to this place in America overnight and it will not be reversed overnight. But it won’t be reversed at all without Christians influencing culture in the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Christians living in the fullness of truth and grace speaking to their family, friends, and politicians.

Christian Influence on Society

Even with a cursory reading of the book of Acts in the New Testament there is no denying that after the birth of the Church at Pentecost these people who named Christ as their Savior and Lord had a profound effect on whatever society they lived in. From the public proclamation of the Gospel on the portal of Solomon’s Temple to the house churches, from the public square to the jail cell, from cities corridors to the quarters of the Emperor, from the centers of highest learning to the by-ways of poverty, they infiltrated society with their influence. They did it on a personal individual level as well as a corporate level. Their method was mass evangelism and one on one. Their influence was in private and in public.

These same people who had lived in harmony with their society all their lives were now agents of massive societal tension. What changed? Had society changed so much in their lifetime that they now felt the need to stand in the gap and recoup the past? Had the government forced unacceptable influence upon society that they rebelled against? Had evil infiltrated the life of society so much that, in their goodness, they were motivated to bring about a better society? Had the quality of their lives deteriorated to the point that they were driven to recapture a better life for themselves and their posterity?

I purpose to you that the answer to all these questions is no. What had changed was not society at all. What had changed was the people who believed that this person who was known as Jesus of Nazareth had lived, died, and rose from the dead was and is the Son of God, the Messiah, Savior, Lord, Master, King. These people had accepted the report that this Jesus was “the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through [Him].” (Jn 14:6) He was not just a truth, a way, and a life. They were not just convinced but they were convicted of the fact that “there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Ac 4:12) With this belief these people’s hearts were invaded by the Holy Spirit by whom they were empowered and motivated to proclaim these truths that they now embodied. They believed that His word was truth and that anything that spoke something different was false.

I purpose that the influence that these people wielded upon society was more than just a “plan of salvation” but that their influence was the entire embodiment of the Gospel. They believed that Jesus Christ was an absolute and that His way was not just the only way to eternal life but the best possible way for human beings to live. These people that were willing to go to their deaths for these truths were convicted that their message was the best message for society.

With the before mentioned premise, when we hear people who claim to be Christian say that they do not want to force their views on society we must question what these people believe. Do they believe what those earliest followers of Christ believed? Do they believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation? Do they believe that His Word is truth? Do they believe that His message is the best possible way for human beings to live?

How can someone be a follower of Jesus Christ and not believe that the entire embodiment of the Gospel is the best influence any society can have? Aren't we as Christians suppose to be salt and light to the world? The teachings of the Bible will make better marriages, families, children, employees, employers, neighbors, politicians, etc. Influencing society with the truths of Christianity will bring about an atmosphere that respects all people. Not only will it bring about respect but it emphasizes responsibility and consequence in relation to behavior.

The Scriptures present the standard by which believers are to live. Obviously, this can only be done by grace. Yet the influence will be one of godliness and righteousness. Hosea proclaimed in his prophetic writing, “the ways of the LORD are right, And the righteous will walk in them, But transgressors will stumble in them.” (Ho 14:9) He called to his society “Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity.” (Ho 14:1)

In my opinion, Christians have lost their influence in America because we have stumbled in the ways of God. We have believed the lie that religion and politics don’t mix. We have segregated our faith from our society. Christians don’t believe that their salvation is in being an American but in being in Christ. We are citizens of the Kingdom of God and that citizenship is greater than being an American citizen. Still, we have stumbled in letting this earthly kingdom influence the Kingdom of God rather than vise versa. Being an American we have believed that we are free to believe what we want and behave how we want. Yet, in being a follower of Christ we are constrained to believe that true freedom is found in the truth and that truth drives us to behave appropriately.

 Christianity is not bound by democracy. If a Christian finds himself in a totalitarian society he is still bound to live out his faith privately and publicly. Being found in a democracy does not change that. However, if a Christian is found in a democracy where he is given a voice and choice shouldn't that believer be all the more salt and light to his/her world? Shouldn't their voice and choice influence their society to holiness and righteousness?

Let me give two examples of current politics where, in my opinion, the Christian who is an American citizen can influence society to the better. One is in the area of abortion. In 1973 the law of the land established a freedom to seek abortion. Over 40 years that law has reached further and further into the duration of pregnancy. There is no doubt that abortion has become a major choice of birth control. No doubt that the 1960’s brought about a public sexual revolution and abortion has encouraged a society that is loose in the morals of sexual relationships. It has been used to try to ease the physical responsibility and consequence of sex. The Scriptures are clear that the act that brings about the formation of a child is to be holy and righteous within the bonds of marriage. Also, the Scriptures are firm on the truth that it is God who brings about life in the womb. To kill that life is the antithesis of seeing God as the author of that life. Just as murder is the taking of an innocent life, so is abortion. Abortion, as birth control, is the opposite of believing God when He says, “children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward.” (Ps 127:3) If a Christian is given the voice and choice in establishing laws to govern society shouldn't they protect the life in the womb? Shouldn't the Christian place a higher value on life than on personal freedom? Shouldn't the Kingdom of God influence this earthly kingdom? Shouldn't they encourage holiness and righteousness by influencing the physical responsibility and consequence of sex?

The second example is homosexual lifestyle. The Scriptures are very absolute in the lifestyles of unrighteousness; “do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Co 6:9–11) The homosexual lifestyle is equated with the lifestyles of liars, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. They are all unrighteous lifestyles. So, it is no different in caliber of sinfulness than other perversions of God’s ways. Should not Christians use their voice and choice to provide the best possible way for human beings to live together? We have laws born out of nature that protect the righteous. That is the purpose of law; “law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Ti 1:9–11) If we are given a voice of in society shouldn't our voice embody the gospel? Shouldn't we do all we can, in the environment we find ourselves in, to protect the righteous? Weren't we all born with certain dispositions that were antithetical to sound teaching?  Didn't the gospel save us from the lifestyles that perverted God’s ways? Shouldn't the Kingdom of God influence this earthly kingdom? Shouldn't we influence society to live lifestyles that are the best possible way for human beings to live together?

It is my opinion that although salvation in Christ is eternally personal and individual it is never intended to be private. The Gospel of Christ is not something that can be thwarted into silence unless the follower of Christ quenches and grieves the Holy Spirit. I am not advocating a social gospel but a gospel that influences society. Using our voice and choice for the betterment of society may cost us our lives just as it did some of those in the Book of Acts but we must in obedience speak the truth in love. Whether or not our message is received is not the issue. The outcome of our obedience is not what motivates us. It is not even our love for America that primarily motivates us. It is our love for Jesus that motivates us. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (Jn 14:15)

May we as Christians who are also American citizens return to our Lord, revive our faith, and reunite to influence our society to the best possible way for human beings to live together.

How Can I Help?

It took me a little longer than a week to put this together but here it is. In light of what I have proposed concerning what I believe to be a culture problem, the question comes “How can we help?” “What can we do to help correct our culture and help prevent these types of tragedies?” Here are ten things that can start reversing the heart condition of our culture.

1.     As a Christian, the first thing we can do is pray. “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,  for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Ti 2:1–2). Pray that our government will make decisions that allow us as Christians to live in harmony with our culture as we live out the life of Christ in public.

2.     Live out our faith. By that I mean don’t just take the name of Christian but become a true follower of Christ. The followers of Christ “were first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11:26) by those who were not followers of Christ because their lives so identified with Christ that it was noticeable to those outside of Christ. In the New Testament age being called a partisan of Christ, Christian, was not a complement but a condemnation. They were supposed to be a partisan of Rome. Christians have lost their influence in our culture because we have tried to be accepted by the “world.” We have tried to make being a Christian non-offensive to a godless, lawless, licentious, unrighteous world. We have done just the opposite of what we are instructed to do: “Don’t become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking” (The Message Romans 12:2). Following Christ sometimes will put us at odds with our culture. So much so that at times we may even suffer because we follow Christ. Yet, “if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name” (1 Peter 4:16).

3.     At least an aspect of being a partisan of Christ is being someone who spreads the message of the Gospel. Will the true Gospel message be offensive? YES! Why? Because “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). It is the message that got the early partisans of Christ arrested and killed. Still, it is the message that will confront the evils of our culture. It is the only message that will produce a personal embodiment of “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” (Ga 5:22–23). These are the virtues that will transform our culture.

4.     Just as partisans of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents speak out about their platform let us who are partisans of Christ speak out. We have willingly allowed the evils of this culture drown our voices out. We need to speak out with grace in our conversations but we need to speak. The exhortation to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind,” is not intended to be just a mental exercise but “so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Ro 12:2). Speak out encouraging that which is good and righteous. Speak out against that which is evil and wrong. Yet, whether we are speaking out for the positive or against the negative let us heed the instruction “Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person” (Colossians 4:6). May our speech never be with “anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech” (Colossians 3:8). Let our speech be civil even in the face of hostilities.

5.     Let there be unity among Christians. A wise preacher once said “that which units us will also divide us” as he spoke concerning ideas and beliefs of different sects. As partisans of Christ may we let the belief and faith in Jesus Christ be what unites us and what divides us. Jesus unites us together and divides from those who outside of Christ. We may have some different beliefs in some doctrines. We may have some different interpretations of particular Biblical passages. But let’s not allow those things divide followers of Jesus Christ. Among those who are partisans of Christ let us never divide ourselves over politics, denominations, or public opinion. In unity we can stand together and gain greater influence on our culture.

6.     “Love your neighbors as yourself” (Matt 22:39) Begin initiating deeper relationships with those in your neighborhood. Maybe it is through a Neighborhood Watch or through Block Parties, but however it is start paying attention to your neighbors.

7.     Pay attention to those around you. Not just in a suspicious way but in a compassionate way. Look out for those who are doing good and beneficial things for the community and encourage them. Watch out for those who are being bad and destructive and, if possible and SAFE, confront them with grace and kindness. If you see something suspicious or illegal, tip off the police even if in anonymity.

8.     If you are available and qualified get involved in public service. Whether it is in city government, school board, civic organizations, etc. carry your good-sense and good-morals into the public arena. Be an agent of change to better your community.

9.     Voice your concerns and ideas to those who can do something about them. Don’t be afraid to call, email, snail mail, text, etc. those who are supposed to be representing you. From your city council person to the President of the United States of America, they need to hear from you in order to represent you.

10.  Live out what has been called the Golden Rule: “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you” (Mt 7:12). Be the neighbor you would want as a neighbor. Be the costumer you would want to serve. Be the employee or employer you would want to employee or work for. “In everything” and in every way treat others with respect, honesty, and grace.

What's wrong with us? Why another mass murder?

I don’t purpose to understand or know all the details of what to do concerning the shootings in Newtown, CT. I surely don’t have anything to say that would help those who lost love ones. With them I can only mourn and grieve. Interestingly the politicians and news programs immediately focus on gun controls and regulations. What is driving this line of thought? In my opinion it is, in a word, “Emotions.” It’s a very dangerous thing when we start talking about making laws when driven by emotions. Not that those emotions are bad, because they are not, but laws are made based on reason, responsibility, and accountability.

Two things are brought to mind with viewing all the news media’s response to this tragedy. Humanly we are always looking for someone or something to blame. Are guns to blame? In my thinking, no! More people die in drunken driving accidents every month than the worse mass shooting event. There are, on average, 18 children killed every month by drunk drivers. Do we blame the vehicles or vehicle makers? Do we try to make laws to ban or regulate vehicles so drunk drivers won’t or can’t have access to them? No! There have been more laws and stricter laws passed against drunk drivers. Has it helped? Maybe. Have we absolutely been able to protect our children? No! All the news talk shows on Sunday morning are all talking about gun control. This is the easy out in my opinion. It is the political thing to do. It is the emotional thing to do. It makes us feel like we are doing something to help.

The second thing that comes to mind is we as Americans want a guarantee of safety for our children and ourselves. Yet, there is no such thing as absolute safety. For instance, though it is a relative thought, parents in Israel send their children to school every morning not knowing if a car bomb, suicide boomer, or by some other Arab means their children will be kill. They live in this tension of constant stress every day without blaming the bomb, vehicle, or other tools used to perpetrate such horrible acts. The blame is placed upon the person and culture that produces the reasoning behind the acts of violence. We, too, need to place responsibility and accountability where is belongs. It is a cliché but the truth is guns don’t kill people. People kill people. They may use guns, box cutters, airplanes, fertilizer, vehicles, or some other tool but make no mistake it is ultimately a person behind the tool that uses it to murder.

Allow me to voice my opinion on what we face as a nation and purpose a ‘why’ for these acts of mass murders we have seen an increase in over the past decade. I do not believe we have a gun problem or even a mental illness problem. What we have is a cultural problem. As a believer and follower of Christ, I ultimately will come to a conclusion that what we have is a spiritual problem. As Mike Huckabee said “We have a sin problem.” That is the root of the problem. But that is a problem we have always had. So why do we see these types of mass murders increase?

In my lifetime, I was born in 1957, there has been a significant cultural shift. At some point over the past 55 years we have a culture where there are more people who do not attend a Christian type church than there are people who do attend a Christian type church. Religious activity such as going to church is not what prevents mass murders but it can create a culture where there is a respect for life. The Christian message has always emphasized the ultimate highest value of human life. The Gospel message is that Christ died for humanity to have life and have it abundantly. In true Christianity there is a message that enthrones and encourages respect for life and of others. As America becomes more and more populated by people who less and less attend Christian churches the less and less we have a population that values and respects Christian virtues. I specifically say Christian churches and not just Religion because radical religious fervor, whether in the name of Christ or other dogmatism, produces fanaticism that does not have value and respect for life and others. Religion produces a disturbed rationale where the end justifies the means. True Christianity is more about the means and willing to leave the results up to a sovereign God.

The true Christian message fosters a culture that desires the need to know and care for our neighbors. A culture where there is a respect for and acceptance of other. It campaigns for a culture that cultivates and teaches us to love our neighbors as ourselves and do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We have lost the culture where true Christian values are present and propagated by the majority. I do not believe that Biblically there is such a thing as a Christian Nation but there is such a thing as a Nation where Christians have a significant influence. In America, Christians have lost this influence. Christians have bought the lie that since Christianity is personal it should not have any weight in the public square. Our culture is now living out the propaganda of those who have forced on society that we need to separate the State FROM the church.

There are times recorded in history where communities experienced such spiritual revival that the crime rate dropped so much that the police had nothing to do. What we now have in America is the opposite of that revival spirit. We have more and more turning their backs on the true Christian faith and message as they reject the religious rules and rituals of misguided religion. They've thrown the baby out with the bath water.

Ours is a culture that has not only encouraged mothers to leave the home and become significant by working in a career but has forced families to become a two wage earner family in order to maintain the middle-class lifestyle they desire. Greed has endorsed a society of debt that allows us to bury ourselves under plastic money that binds us to the past and robs us of future potential. Our culture has been fooled into believing that we can exchange our personal attention to our children with giving them “things.” The family culture of America has been torn apart with the disintegration of the loving bond of matrimony. The virtue of loyalty to and support for one’s own family has been greatly subverted. The concept of true, happy, lasting love has been destabilized and has robbed our culture of the dream for marriage and family. The first and second generations of children that have had to suffer through the pain of divorce are the ones perpetuating these mass murder acts on society. The ones who actually perform these mass murders may not have been from a divided family but our culture over all carries this pain. The first and second generations of “latch key kids” are the ones who are perpetuating these mass murder acts on society. Again, the ones who preformed these acts may not have been a “latch key kid” but our society carries the emotional effects. Could there be a connection between the dissolution of the family and the increase of these violent acts?

Another cultural change that has come about because of the loss of significant Christian influence is one where the value of life is determined by a humanistic society rather than a Holy God. Is it a coincidence that the value of life has been greatly diminished since 1973 in the legalization of abortion? We mourn and grieve the killing of 20 children while we celebrate the legal right to kill millions in the name of freedom, a woman’s right over her own body. In our society the value of human life is determined and displayed by financial income. The wealth we bestow upon certain professions and the lack of wealth we bestow upon other professions says a lot about who we are as a culture. Look at what we pay those who keep and teach our children verses those who entertain us. The ultimate end of a profession is no longer to benefit society but to accumulate wealth. Serving our fellow man is commonly placed behind ‘what’s in it for me.’ Selfishness and self-centeredness has replaced serving and sharing.

There has been a cultural change in our education system where we don’t allow conversations about God, morals, responsibility, patriotism, and accountability. This has advanced a culture where individual rights have trumped the good of society. As society has become less and less “churched” the values that teachers have brought into the classroom are more and more those espoused by the humanistic education system rather than the church. Teachings that elevate humanism, situation ethics, gender neutral sex education, along with other secular adopted positions has replaced accountability to God, morals that benefit society (i.e. The Ten Commandments), personal responsibility, and proud America patriotism. Because of a few who failed the system we no longer give authority in the classroom to the teacher but we still want to hold them responsible for what goes on in the classroom. The idea of discipline in school has become a bad thing and we wonder why our young people have no respect for authority. Without authority and discipline there is removed the boundaries that develop the ability for self-control. Emotions need boundaries and without discipline those emotions become unbalanced. We say of those who do these horrible acts that they are unbalanced, that they have mental and emotional problems. Part of the reason for this unbalance is that almost all discipline that teaches a balance to those emotions has been removed in society. Respect for authority has been compromised. Respect for positions of authority like teachers, police, and adults in general are a thing of a past culture. A culture where there were guns but not mass murders.

Another cultural illness symptom in our society is in an entertainment industry that glorifies violence. From our sports to our movies there is a glorifying of violence. We have at least one generation that is now under 40 that has been desensitized to killings, death, and violence. There is less compassion, empathy, and sympathy. I think in this, the news media must take some responsibility. Our instant information age has made it possible for us to know every detail about these news events as they become available. This obsession for instant visual dispersing of information has in many ways spread the idea of becoming famous by doing something horrific. Along with the news media the movie industry has done an unbelievable job at making things look real on the big screen and emphasizing it by showing it. In the Westerns of old, that I use to watch as an adolescent, had killing, death, and violence in them but most of the actualizing of it was left to the imagination. It wasn't shown. As our culture has become less and less influenced by Christian values it has become more and more saturated by the values of Hollywood. What we are reaping now are children, adolescents, and young adults who are disciples of Hollywood rather than disciples of Christ.

In my thoughts about culture, there is a cultural problem in our justice system. Not very often is justice served swiftly, severely, and substantially. Violent offenders should not have rights after they are proven guilty. Prison shouldn't be a place just below an extended stay at a health and fitness resort. Punishment should be swift, severe, and significant to the crime. Our justice system has become unbalanced. Our laws have evolved to favor the guilty rather than producing justice for the victim. Our legal system has lost its ability to deter violent crime by a culture that lost the understanding of the purpose of the death penalty. Our culture has produced prisons that are overflowing with criminals that have more rights than many of their victims. The legal culture of America takes those who have been found guilty of sexually violating the bodies of children and places them back in communities where they can do it again. We grieve the emotional trauma of those who survived in Newtown while all across America are countless more children who suffer emotional trauma from sexual assault of repeat offenders. Our culture has an eschewed view of justice.

Finally, we have created a political culture where Americans expect government to “fix” all the problems of our culture. Government has become bigger and bigger. Legislators pass more and more laws that fail to provide and protect us from ourselves. Our culture is such that every time there is an incident we put pressure on our politicians to do something to prevent it from happening again. Yet, our cultural problems continue to escalate. Government is not the answer. Not only is it not the answer but it has become part of the problem. Our political culture has evolved into a system where the majority of the people, especially those under 40 years of age, believe it to be corrupt and void of their influence. In our culture politician is a dirty word. Most believe the government is no longer, as President Abraham Lincoln said “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Most Americans believe that politicians are corrupt. Most believe that politicians serve the government (themselves) rather than serving the people. Being a politician is seen to be more of a career choice than a choice to serve one’s country. The culture of our young adults has lost complete confidence in our government to keep available the opportunity to achieve the American Dream and have turned more and more to the government to provide the American Dream. Our culture has lost hope and when hope is lost disillusionment, despair, and detestation turns into violence.

There is no way that history can deny that our Founding Fathers were driven with a Biblical awareness. Our Constitution was written with a Biblical influence. Our laws were formulated from a Biblical understanding. That is not to say that all our Founding Fathers were Christian or that they even believed in the Bible. Our Founders were wise enough that they didn't force the Bible and their beliefs upon their fellow countrymen. There is a separation of church and state. But there is the recognition that there is a church and a state. With that recognition there was a principled foundation that was built upon. And that foundation was principles gleamed from the Bible. One of the primary principles established was in limiting the role of Government in ruling over the people. The Constitution, Articles, Bill of Rights, inalienable rights, separation of powers, republic, democracy, property ownership, and other principles all point to a limiting role of government in the lives of its people. So, in light of this and the cultural problems I've identified let’s take a look at the Second Amendment.

There is a reason that it is Second. The First is the guarantee of freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petitioning the government. Second only to the First is the right to keep and bear Arms. It has been well debated and further defined that this right is not defined by or diminished by a well regulated Militia. From our Founding Fathers of whose names, papers, arguments, and debates have been preserved the Second Amendment Right was not just for the purpose of hunting and recreational shooting. Its purpose was to provide a defense for oneself, one’s family, one’s property, and one’s freedom from the tyranny of governments, from the assailants, and from those who are determined to commit crimes.

As the Second Amendment comes under attack because of horrific mass murders such as the one we see in Newtown, CT let us remember what Thomas Jefferson said, "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." 12 Jun 1823 (The Complete Jefferson p.32) The Second Amendment was established to guarantee Americans the right that they could mass and bear arms as a deterrent.

Now you ask, “Why do we need weapons that can spit countless numbers of bullets in seconds?” “Why do we need semi-automatic military style rifles and handguns?” “What purpose do these types of weapons, meant for the battle field, have in the hands of the common man?” To these questions I remind of the words of Noah Webster, "A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state." The reason these type of weapons are needed in the hands of peaceable Americans is that we need a “power sufficient” to those who would do us harm. If we chip away at this Amendment of freedom we weaken the defense of freedom.

I will consent that laws to somehow legalize the ability to mass and bear arms may be helpful to some extent. Laws can never be the complete answer and can never provide complete safety. To ban some arms under the pretense of protecting the public is only a restriction of the power of the people to protect themselves from those that would infringe upon their right to freedom. In the ole adage, it restricts us to bringing a knife to a gun fight. I agree with Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert on Fox News Sunday when he said about the Principle of Newtown's Elementary School, “I wish to God she would have had an M4 in her office locked up, so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, But she takes him out, takes his head off before he could kill those precious kids.”

Our cultural problems have easily lead Americans to allow the minority to rule over the majority. We see a surge in killings where weapons with the ability of mass murdering capability have been used and compassionately we desire to do something to prevent another one from happening. Politically our first response is to make those types of arms illegal. This recourse gives us the emotional satisfaction that we have done something. Yet, in the vein of the saying of frustration, “Do something even if it is the wrong thing”, gun bans and more gun control is the wrong thing. To that I leave you with words from James Madison, Jr., "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." To try to absolutely ban certain types of arms for reason of the criminal, the mentally incapacitated, or those who are irresponsible with such weapons is, in my opinion, a gradual and silent encroachment in the abridgment of the fundamental rights of our freedom. It is allowing the minority to rule over the majority. With the rights of millions of peaceful, respectful, responsible gun owners across America being threatened, bans and more gun control is not the answer to our problems.

Yes, we need to do something but the something we need to do will probably be much harder than to just pass another law against something. We must admit that what we have is, not a gun problem, but a culture problem. What we must do is look in the mirror and say as Walt Keller in his Pogo comic strip, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

(Coming later this week: How we can help.)

Suffering is a minset.

As I sat with our 31 year old daughter before she went into surgery and waiting while she was in surgery, I was thinking of a friend who has been setting with her 29year old son as he takes his chemo, praying to rid his body of Stage IV colon cancer. It was when I was in the waiting phase that I was thanking God that Chrissy didn't have a serious disease; she was having a minor procedure to correct a lazy eye that she has had since birth. At the same time I was letting God know that I was really tired of suffering. If it's not me suffering, it's Estela. If it's not my family, it's my friends. God I'm really weary from sufferings.

That's when I heard the voice. He said "SUFFERING IS A MINDSET!" As I contemplated this, I looked around the waiting room. There were several children in the room that ranged from around 2-4 years of age. Their parents were waiting for the call to take them back for the surgery or waiting for the surgeon to come out and give them the report. The children were a little grumpy but not bad considering they hadn't had anything to eat or drink for over 8 hours. You could tell from observation and eavesdropping on the parents, that some of them had been there before and, others, it was their first time.

I don’t propose to understand all of this suffering. Yet, His word to me seemed to give an assurance that He is present and has a purpose in our sufferings. Here's what I think the Lord was showing me:

1) Suffering is a matter of experience. Some of the parents in the waiting room had experienced this scenario before. Obviously, they were concerned for their baby's health but experience had taught them that it probably was going to be okay. Others there had been there several times. Even though they were concerned, this was old hat to them. Still, others there, this was there first time. They were visibly upset and anxious. Regardless, they were there because they believed it was beneficial for them or their child.

If you think about it, have we ever experienced life without sufferings? To me, the answer is no. There are some seasons where sufferings are less and some where sufferings are greater but, in reality, there are always some degrees of sufferings in life. The Scriptures teach us that "we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." (Rom 8:22) Even the entire creation sighs and cries out in suffering as it waits for the redemption of Christ Second Coming. No one knows for sure how those sighs and cries are manifested but maybe they are the things we call natural disasters. Maybe the tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, and other things of nature are the whole creation crying out in suffering.

When the intensity of our suffering is kicked into high gear, it seems, in comparison, that we didn't have much suffering at all before. That’s when we desire to return to the times of less suffering. We get weary of the suffering. It seems the weights of the burdens are just too great to bear. Yet, we cannot experience Christ in a greater way without experiencing sufferings in a greater way. The greater we know Him the greater our suffering. For it is in the midst of experiencing sufferings that we experience Him. This is why Paul could say, "I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death.” (Phil 3:8-10) Because he, Paul, has more experience than us in suffering he encourages us to “Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” He confidently tells us “Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God.” And Peter can exhort us that, “After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.” (1 Pet 5:10)

Sometimes, we, like Job, question God with “Why is light given to him who suffers.” (Job 3:20) It seems cruel that we know a better way, we see a better way, but we still suffer. God’s answer is “From the wicked their light is withheld.” (Job 38:15) Is it better to have the light in suffering or not have the light at all? Maybe we suffer because we do see the light. Would it be better to not see the light at all? All people on the face of the earth suffer. The only difference is whether the sufferings are done in the light or in the darkness. The only difference between the sufferers is where they end up.

If our mindset is that suffering is inevitable we will not “be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.” (1 Pet 4:12-13) Though we will get tired of sufferings and weary in it, we will, in the end, be able to “keep on rejoicing” because we know that it is beneficial for us. And although we know it is beneficial for us we will still get tired of it and weary in it. Why? Because that is there we encounter Christ and hear Him say “My grace is sufficient for you, for [My] power is perfected in [your] weakness.” (2 Co 12:9). We cannot experience His fullness, faithfulness, and favor without experiencing His sufferings. The Bible promises us that “just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ.” (2 Co 1:5) To the degree that we experience sufferings is the degree to which we experience His comfort. In the experience, “keep on rejoicing.”

2) Suffering is a matter of expectations. We were there in that waiting room, along with all the others there, because we expected that why we were there was going to be helpful. The parents of those children would not have been there and turn their babies over to those surgeons unless they completely and absolutely believed in medical science and expected good to come from it. By doing what they were doing, those parents subjected their children to sufferings. Their children feel anxiety, panic, fear, confusion, aloneness, isolation, abandoned, grief, loss, insecurity, distress, emptiness, agitations, anger, not to mention the physical pain of the surgery.

Without reducing God to humanity, could it be that God is completely “aware of our sufferings” (Ex 3:7) as He was the Israelites in captivity, yet understands that it is going to be beneficial to us? Like the “woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak” (Mt 9:20), maybe He expects us to come to Him in our sufferings. As our creator, maybe He knows that the influence of sin on us will cause us to become complacent in our relationship with Him without something to drive us to Him. After all, that has been the pattern of man all through the Bible. God delivers, man becomes complacent, God allows sufferings, and man turns to God. The grace of God in this pattern is that, it is the influence of sin that causes our suffering.

Turning to God when we suffer is inferred in the First Epistle of Peter when Peter wrote, “Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.” (1 Pt 4:19) There it is. There is a suffering that God wills and as we go through it we are to trust our Sovereign Creator to always do what is right. “It is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.” (1 Pt 3:17) Sometimes it is God’s will for us to suffer. If we suffer for doing wrong then we suffer justly. If we suffer for doing what is right then we suffer righteously. If we suffer for doing what is right, others will notice, just as the thief who was crucified with Jesus. While observing Jesus being crucified, he said to his cohort in crime, “we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” (Lk 23:41). This is why Peter instructs that we understand, “For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.” (1 Pt 2:20) There is a grace that God gives when living the best we can, we suffer, and we patiently endure it.

Not only is there a suffering that is the will of God, but there is also a suffering that is a gift from God: “For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.” (Phil 1:29) “It has been granted” is the phrase that carries the idea of someone doing a favor for someone. So, there is such a thing as the gift of sufferings. Sometimes God does us a favor by allowing us to suffer. Just as it is by grace that we believe in Him it is also by grace that we suffer “for His sake.” In context it seems apparent that this suffering is because of being a believer, to suffer on behalf of Christ. Yet, couldn’t the idea of suffering on behalf of Christ mean to suffer gracefully testifying of Christ in the face of a hostile world. “To suffer for His sake” does not tell us what kind of suffering one goes through but that the gift of suffering is for believers as they live out their lives for Christ.

How could we expect anything less than the Author and Perfecter of our faith? “For it was fitting for Him [Father], for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings… Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.” (Heb 2:10; 5:8) Jesus started early in His earthly ministry teaching the disciples that “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day.” (Lk 9:22) After the resurrection Jesus miraculously joined two disciples as they walked on the road to Emmaus. Not recognizing Him, they began expressing their despondency in the crucifixion and death of Jesus. As Jesus listened to them, He questioned their belief in what had been written, when He said, “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” (Lk 24:26)

If it was necessary for Christ to suffer, should we not expect that there is the necessity that we, too, must suffer in order to learn obedience and to bring us to completion. This leads me to understand what Peter wrote, “Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose.” (1 Pt 4:1) With this exhortation there comes the expectation of suffering. What difference does it make, if, when we suffer, it is expected? First, if it is expected, it does not catch us off guard. We are not “surprised at the fiery ordeal among” us. If we are not shocked when sufferings come there is a higher probability that we won’t start wondering if we are being punished, if God is angry with us, if God cares, or if we even know God. Expectation allows us the freedom to rest in the sovereignty of God and that His character in dealing with us, His children, is through His love, grace, and forgiveness. We are “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” (Rom 8:17)

Expect to suffer. He told us we would. Stop being surprised by it. Expectation will take the sting out of sufferings. Being Christian does not exempt us from sufferings. If it did, everybody would want to be a Christian for the wrong reason. Some people obviously believe that God owes them a life without sufferings because they fall away from the faith when they find themselves suffering. Some believers, who are truly saved, have a belief system that holds to a belief that God should spare us from sufferings if we serve Him. When they suffer they lose their joy and go into deep depression. They get angry at God for allowing the sufferings and they stay mad at Him if the suffering doesn’t stop. Other believers deny reality when they put on their fake smiles and “praise the Lords” in the midst of the sufferings. Suffering doesn’t seem to faze them in the least little bit because they are not in touch with their own emotions.

Yes there are sufferings in life. Yes, even Christians suffer in life. After all, He “sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matt 5:45) Expect it. God expects us to turn to Him in our sufferings. The joy of the Lord is our strength (Neh 8:10). He’s not angry with us. He’s not punishing us. His love for us has not diminished. His grace will get us through it. Don’t compare your sufferings with someone else’s sufferings. If we’re going to compare our sufferings, let’s be like Paul and compare them to eternity. Paul wrote, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.” (Rom 8:18) In the expectation, “keep on rejoicing.”

3) Suffering is a matter of example. “Since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps.” (1 Pt 1:21) Jesus set the example for us in sufferings. He walked this way before, blazing the trail for us. Now, He empowers us to walk the faith-walk while going through sufferings. The idea is not, “if He can do it I can do it”, but, “because He did it for me, I don’t have to do it, all I have to do is rest in Him.” If I follow in His steps I will suffer because He suffered but His comfort will be mine, as well.

This is nothing new. It was a reality in the Old Testament, too. “As an example, brethren, of suffering and patience, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.” (Jam 5:10) Not only did Jesus set the example but the prophets of old also set an example for us. They lived patiently in the midst of sufferings as an example to us. Satan, like a roaring lion, will try to devour us and destroy us through sufferings. He will try to corrupt our faith. He will try to steal our joy. He will lie to us about our victory. The Apostle Peter tells us how to deal with him as he tries to intimidate us with his loud roars. “But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world.” (1 Pet 5:9) Resist him. Stand firm in your faith. Look around and see all the examples of faithful followers who have been and are still going through sufferings. My father taught me and I taught my children; just look around and you will find someone who has it worse than you.

Realize that as we go through sufferings we become an example to others. We are either a good example or a poor example. But don’t just live to be an example. LIVE BECAUSE YOU ARE ALIVE IN CHRIST. Suffer in your love for God. Love Him more than you hate the suffering. He has everything in control and nothing we go through catches Him by surprise.

Hebrews 12:1-3
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us [and all the examples, past and present], let us also lay aside every encumbrance [like expecting God to treat us different than He has anyone else] and the sin which so easily entangles us [like disbelief in His sovereignty and trusting Him with everything dear to us], and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us [life is a marathon not a sprint], 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy [keep on rejoicing; not talking about happiness but never losing our sense of humor because we know who holds the future] set before Him endured the cross [sufferings], despising the shame [not letting sin have the victory], and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God [our promise of heaven]. 3 For consider Him [He set the example] who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself [no one has ever suffered so much], so that you will not grow weary [we get tired and weary but we don’t stay there] and lose heart [give up and revert back to our safe, old way of dealing with everything].

2 Timothy 2:12
For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.