Thursday, April 26, 2007

Is it "the enemy within," or just "the immature on paper?"

I may be becoming one of those grumpy alums students can't stand...if so, sorry.

OK, full disclosure: I am a former editor (2 and a half years) of the ancestor of the Cedars, C.U.'s student newspaper, back in the late '70s. We were not censored by the University during those days, but expected to censor ourselves. We tried to keep news as news, and offer opinion on an opinion page--we offered lots of opinions, too. We also saw our job to be that of being journalists with a Christian worldview (the concept was popular back then, starting with Dr. Allen Monroe in fall quarter's Foundations of Social Science). Thus, we tried to tell truth, and subject opinion to the "grid" or "lens" of truth. We hated the historic name we were stuck with (does Whispering Cedars sound like hard-hitting journalism to you?)During my years, I am sure that we published our share of rants and less than Pulitzer-quality news stories. The headline "Student Discovers 'Worm Like Object' In Food" still haunts me (I was holding out for "Maggots in the Meat!" but I lost to my co-editor).

That said, I have been increasingly disappointed by what seems to be a lack of biblical foundation in some of the opinion (and yes, some of the "news," too) stories I've seen in the Cedars the past 2 years I've been in town. Weak writing I can expect--people are learning. Points of view that are poorly expressed or weakly supported can fall under the same category. But promoting views that seem to be at odds with a biblical worldview and left unchallenged are bothersome at the very least.

The most recent issue featured an opinion piece in which a student author recounted his dialog with a friend who believes she has been a lesbian all her life ( the article is linked to heading above). She is described without comment as an adult homosexual Christian. Now, aside from the lack of a challenge to that idea, the account continues with this friend's desire to marry and be happy. The writer agrees. Viewpoints pro and con are not really examined, with one of the "weaker" arguments against gay marriage dismissed as silly. The writer's conclusion: America needs to uphold its promise of freedom to be happy for everyone, and we ought not to interfere.

Since this article was paired with another under the heading "Both Sides Matter," I figured that the companion piece would be a counterpoint. I was wrong. Instead, it was a professor's recollection of judging a debate where a gay debater for homosexual marriage identified himself as a friend of Matthew Shepard, the young man brutally murdered a number of years ago in Wyoming. The professor talked about the profound impact this personal contact with this gay man had on her, and caused her to realize the personal nature of this issue. And... that was it. Good thoughts, but no rebuttal. In fact, it could be taken (even if not intended this way) as endorsement. Do both sides of the argument matter? No, apparently only one side does.

Do I know gay people who want to marry? Yes. Are some of them people that I personally care about? Absolutely. Does this have anything to do with the political issues of gay marriage, of constitutional issues, or the relationship between societal norms, legal policy, and morality (i.e., legislating morality is what law is, at some level)? No. Does it address why Christians who uphold biblical authority may oppose gay marriage even while acknowledging Christians' failure to live up to the biblical ideal themselves? No. It doesn't even make an informed case for homosexual marriage. It only aims for feelings about fairness for nice people.

Bottom line--Cedars offered unbalanced opinion coverage supporting gay marriage. No debate, no real facts to consider, just lots of feeling. If this were an isolated case, that would be sad enough. Pair this, though, with the recent "puff" piece on Mel White--it honestly read like an adoring press release. The article offered no examination of the man's past and his agenda, or of the coercive tactics he chooses to seek to embarrass evangelicals in the media. It was left to Dr. Carl Ruby to offer a response, and while the initial story was presented as "news," Dr. Ruby's response was labeled a "viewpoint." In such cases, the paper seems content to be a promotional tool for various and sundry ideas, rather than a journalistic endeavor covering and commenting on the news and events of the campus, the area, and the world.

Without realizing it, I think the Cedars becomes strong evidence of the need for C.U. to establish a journalism program. If C.U. students are to become gatekeepers in society, as is often stated, then they need to know what a newspaper can and should be, and how Christians with developed biblical worldviews can and should report and opine. News coverage needs facts, and opinions need support other than feelings.

My hope is that next year, the Cedars will raise the bar for itself, seeing its mission as being the student newspaper of an institution whose very existence is "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ."

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Not bad for a tombstone...

A few weeks ago I made my second visit to Agra, where I snapped this picture of the Taj Mahal. Most people guess that it is a palace fit for a king. While it is grand, and a king and his queen are there, a palace it isn't.

Actually, the Taj Mahal was a mausoleum, for the favorite wife of Shah Jahan. She made him promise never to remarry, and he didn't. Instead, he spent the next 17 years building this monument in which to lay her body. It is perfectly symmetrical in every detail--except one.

You see, Shah Jahan nearly bankrupted the country building this tribute to his beloved, and when he began construction on the opposite side of the river of an identical "black Taj" that would be his final resting place, his son and crown prince had seen enough. He deposed his father, kept him under house arrest for the rest of his life, and when he died, buried him to the right of his wife's body--making Shah Jahan's resting place the one blot on the otherwise perfect symmetry of the structure and court.

Some consider the Taj Mahal as the greatest tribute to love. But its story is one laced with sorrow and death, the frustration of plans, and family betrayal. Not exactly the fruits of love we want to celebrate.

OK, One Last Word on You Know What

I'm not wanting to beat a dead horse on the Soulforce visit, but I did want to say that it seems like all went as well as C.U. could have hoped, that God answers prayer, that good plans made humbly seeking God's direction were well made and implemented, and that the press seemed to get Cedarville's message just as clearly as they should have. I compare this to the story here and see that Soulforce used Cornerstone's refusal to stage a "media stunt" as the reporter says.

The only question that remains is whether or not there will be fallout from the constituency. Let us pray not.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Invisibility Cloak Works!

The day is down to its last event, which I cannot attend, but Cedarville has managed to keep the Soulforce visit to C.U.'s desired agenda. I did hear most of a panel discussion in the afternoon, and marveled as C.U.'s presenters and their well reasoned and organized presentations were met with...feelings (whoa oh oh feelings). Every Soulforce member talked about what they felt, how they feel, about every issue. When asked to offer a response to the Scriptures cited by Dr. Chris Miller (go Chris!) about homosexuality, Soulforce's "Christian" spokesman cited a few Scriptures on love and refused to get into a discussion on the cited texts. This was all the more amazing because their sponsor, Mel White, has been in the forefront of offering impressive sounding but ultimately vacuous arguments that seek to gut the words of any normal meaning.

There were quite a few students at the discussion I attended, but more disturbing was the presence of some "out and proud" C.U. alumni. Everyone knows that C.U. has alumni who move away from what the school would believe and hold as true. Nevertheless, it was bizarre hearing one of these alums get up and make the statement that he was there to show you could be a C.U. alum, a Christian, gay, and well-adjusted.

I still don't know if this would have been my choice, but I rejoice to see the immediate results seem positive. I pray that the continuing results will be, as well.

Soulforce's Nearly Invisible Visit

OK, it's near noon, and I've been at C.U. most of the morning, and if I hadn't known where to go for the Q and A session for staff, I don't think I would have known that Soulforce's Equality Ride was present to protest the University's biblical stance concerning homosexuality and gender confusion issues. I've heard of killing with kindness--this kind of looks like smothering with scheduling, and that is a very good thing, in my humble opinion.

The arrival of the group was not met with fanfare, and even their bus is not readily visible on campus. The session I attended was well populated with faculty and staff, and all listened politely as four Soulforce reps shared their perspectives. In answering questions, it became obvious that:
1. They don't have a clue about the true gospel of Jesus. None identified themselves as born again believers.
2. They do believe in diversity and people having their own truths, and as long as yours allow you to affirm me in my beliefs, it's beautiful.
3. They view any rejection as "homophobic." I didn't ask, but should have, is it possible for a person to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is sin and should not be practiced, and also not be homophobic?
4. Any time people on campuses speak kindly to them, apologize for injustices done to them, or give any possible indicator of being willing to talk with them, it is treated as victory, as affirmation, and as support for their encouragement to people to speak out.

Special kudos to Dr. Carl Ruby, whose questions/statements, especially the one raising the question about how love looks between people with strongly held opposing views exposed the weakness in their whole approach. This is not just a "conversation" in their minds where we can agree to disagree. If we keep people from freely expressing in a Christian context, "I am gay," then we are in the wrong, according to their take. And I am NOT saying that just because Carl takes issue with a few of my earlier opinions or examples.

The day isn't over yet, but I am encouraged, and very impressed with how the visit has been handled so far.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Stories and Thoughts Emerging in the Light of the Virginia Tech shootings

The murder of 32 students at Virginia Tech is not only a horrific story, but one that prompts a lot of peripheral discussions--some of which are meaningful, some of which are frustrating.

The meaningful category is enhanced by stories of heroism, such as the one concerning the professor who was a Holocaust survivor and who blocked the door against the gunman so that his student's could escape. He lost his life in that act of courage.

Another news story moves to the frustrating--where people try to take this incident and make a case for gun control. Now, I am not a gun owner, but I do believe that the guns here were not the problem. And I also wonder if responsible people who had passed both firearms proficiency tests and appropriate background checks possessed guns on campus, whether some of those who died might be alive.

Nor do I believe that the shooter was necessarily "sick." "Sick" means "ill," which means suffering from a disease. We are not responsible for getting sick. Our culture tries to say that a person who does what most consider "unthinkable" must be ill.

I would offer another option. He may simply be evil. He may have given himself over to patterns of thinking and acting that were totally self-centered, self-focused, and self-aggrandizing. He certainly viewed others' lives as unworthy of protection. He saw no reason to restrain his own desires, impulses, and actions. In short, he represents some of our sinful culture's values carried to extremes. Self-focused living is the sine qua non of today's society, as "what I feel" becomes final arbiter, and advertisers, politicians, and even religious professionals seek to serve the all knowing "I". The killer here was disturbed--I do not debate that. But his "disturbance" may not have found its source in a disease beyond his control, but in the existence of evil in the world and in each human being, and in his choice to indulge that evil.

Of course, my understanding of the Bible leads me to assert that all people are born with this evil at work in their lives--humanity does not start out "good" and then get corrupted. We begin life as what the Bible calls "sinners." I also acknowledge that the only real solution to humanity's sinfulness is the deliverance offered through Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation through his death and resurrection.

So, how is it that not everyone winds up a mass killer, or as some other heinous individual? The Bible speaks of common grace--God's working in his creation to bless it and restrain certain effects of sin for the good of all. Thus, while all are sinners, sinners still can experience God's common grace through law, societal restraints, conscience, etc. But sinners can also make choices to reject all such graces as well as their Source. This would be my brief explanation of why I see such people not as "sick" and needing therapy, but as evil and deserving of the judgment that is entrusted to human authority, up to and including the death penalty.

One more thing. I believe that such evildoers, if they live after their actions, are still not beyond the redeeming grace of God and the free gift of salvation. Since men such as Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer both made what were deemed by those around them to be sincere professions of faith prior to their deaths, this issue has been raised more than once as an objection to God's grace (or to our understanding of it). God's salvation does not negate or set aside human judgments or consequences. But it does mean that all sinners who repent can be forgiven. Rather than object, we should take heart, for that means we and anyone we know is not beyond God's grace.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

God Sightings in India



I returned last week from India (and am feeling fine, thank you) and an incredible time with Christian brothers in Maharashtra state. The work of Grace Bible College was amazing to see, and I was blessed and humbled to be their graduation speaker. The potential they represent was brought home to me when I saw a church plant less than a year old with over 75 present. These young people plan to enter God's service as evangelists, church planters, children's workers, and social workers. And such workers are trained for $30 a month. Interested in helping? Contact me!



While there, I also got to see a children's home being built that will serve up to 100 kids in need of care. The cost? $25 a month. Again, contact me if you would like to help.

What is so amazing to me is the progress in ministry I observed since my last trip there in October of 2005. The growth and multiplication of church plants is genuinely startling for someone whose main ministry is here is the USA. Equally amazing is what can be accomplished by people with so few of the resources we take for granted compared to what we do with what we have. I can't help but be humbled, and wonder what needs to happen to reawaken our faith to the possibility that God may want us to change, to repent, to believe that there are many around us who need to be confronted with the power of the Gospel.

Soulforce's Rocky Road; Cedarville's Lonely Stand

A quick check of Soulforce's website (I won't link to it)shows that the majority of schools visited thus far have refused them access, some even having them arrested. Bob Jones University, Central Bible College, Southern Baptist Seminary, Mississippi College, Baylor, Cornerstone, College of the Cumberlands, Patrick Henry College, and Covenant College all said no or refused Soulforce desired access to the point where there were arrests. Those who have opened their doors (such as Dordt and Montreat) have been theologically to the left (as far as I can tell) of Cedarville U. on other issues, so their openness on this issue isn't as surprising. Covenant College's rejection voiced concerns similar to those I've voiced in earlier posts. It seems that Cedarville is going to stand nearly if not completely alone among the more conservative, biblical schools in giving Soulforce any platform on campus.

And making things more complex, this has already made the media, and I get the impression they will be there recording the event as well next week when the bus arrives. So, Cedarville may well be wrongly portrayed as welcoming not just Soulforce, but "dialog" about whether homosexuality is acceptable.

Finally, some community folk not associated with the college but active in our church have just heard about this and are appalled that the University is giving them a platform. The nuanced arguments that C.U. has made (and as I have said make many good points) are lost on people who have had to help others struggling with homosexual desires, or mourned with families whose children have adopted a homosexual lifestyle, or who see this as false teachers and promoters of sin being given a chance to influence 18 year olds, who are certainly impressionable (as some of their over the top responses to many other subjects they hear about on campus or in media would demonstrate). They wonder how a God honoring institution can say, "We are convinced of our position and see all the dangers of sin, but are inviting spokesmen and advocates for sin to come and present themselves as victims of prejudice and oppression at the hands of Bible believers."

I know that C.U. is doing a lot to prepare the students, and I know that they plan to do all they can to communicate to Soulforce that their position on homosexuality is not negotiable. But will they be able to control the media reports to make sure that this gets out there, and that they are seen as rejecting Soulforce's arguments even as they welcome them to campus? This is not looking encouraging.