We're Not all the Same...no, Really Part II

By Rich Bordner

(continued from the previous post)

Why is it when the pulpiteers in education utter certain broad-brush aphorisms, that hardly anyone sees the humor in it? Why is it that few people in education think to speak truth to THAT power?

Here's another silly moment I witnessed at the staff development conference I attended recently. The presenters were waxing eloquent about the necessity of having ambiguity in your classroom discussions and lessons. That is, in your discussions, you should stress that there is no one right answer that you are looking for. There is "more than one way to skin a cat." When the students see that their thoughts will be validated and not "put down," they will buy into the discussion more.

The problem isn't so much that ambiguity is always a vice. The problem is that the presenters lacked balance. Though it was never said, the unqualified aphorisms the presenters made it seem like ambiguity was almost an unmitigated good. In fact, the video they showed for this segment was of a MATH teacher teaching the kids that "there is more than one way to skin a cat." She said in the lesson, "gee, I see a whole lotta different answers here. Which one is wrong? (students pause, then answer "none of them!") "That's correct!" (To her credit, the problem was not a straightforward algebra equation. The problem did lend itself to more than one answer. The issue I take with her was the unqualified application she had.) One presenter even went so far as to say, "When discussing morals and ethics, you as the teacher should not try to steer the discussion towards your own view. You should not impose your view on them. That is the job of their parents and churches and communities. Your job is to lead them in thinking about their OWN viewpoints."

GAH! Where do I start?

Sometimes teachers need to stress that there are, indeed, a range of interpretations that are valid for a certain work of literature (not that anything goes, though). When the issue really IS grey, ambiguity is a virtue. But when the issue is black and white, ambiguity is a vice.

As I said to my fellow colleagues, if I hire an engineer to build me a house, and he comes to me and says, "Gee, um, well, this is such a sticky issue, you see. There's no one right way to build the foundation. We're gonna get creative and wing it," I would promptly fire him. If someone walks into my classroom and doubts whether rape is ok, we aren't going to ponder that viewpoint tolerantly and let him "clarify" his values. We will refer him to the school psychiatrist.

That thought had not occured to ANY of my colleagues. When I said that, they muttered, "hmm...I wasn't looking at it like that. I guess you're right....that's a very ambiguous point, Bordner!" (laughter)

The trick is having the wisdom to discern when ambiguity is a virtue and when it is a vice.

While I'm at it: I'm fairly sure that the educator presenters would quickly drop their "ambiguity" and "values clarification" stance if a student voiced a point of view that threatened the pillars of a relativisitic, secular worldview. In a discussion on homosexuality, if a student stood up and said, "I used to be homosexual, and I was miserable. With the help of Exodus International, I have left the gay lifestyle and have experienced much healing and repentance from that sin," I'm pretty sure the teacher would not allow that value to be clarified. The teacher would probably step in and announce concern that the student wasn't being "tolerant" of gays.

They are only interested in ambiguity when it suits them. Start threatening the cherished worldview of the establishment, speak truth to THEIR power, and its game o-v-e-r.

The Erosion of Liberty in America

We can see it all the time: when evil is allowed to grow, irony abounds. Take what happened recently on the streets of Philadelphia immediately outside the Liberty Bell display. Inscribed on the bell reads these words: “PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND UNTO ALL THE INHABITANTS THEREOF.” This comes from an Old Testament verse found in Leviticus 25:10. As shown in the video below, law enforcement officers on duty outside this sacred historical site took away to jail a guy who was actually putting into practice what the inscription on the bell implored any noble American to do: proclaim liberty! (By the way, can anyone proclaim liberty any better than proclaiming the Good News of Jesus?) Apparently, these officers, whose duty it is to defend and preserve such inalienable rights as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble, and the freedom of religion, must have all been sick from school the day those First Amendment Rights were taught.

The officers argued that what was unacceptable was for someone to preach immediately in front of the entrance where people were waiting in line to see the bell. Again, the second part of that verse inscribed on the bell reads: “unto all the inhabitants thereof.” Someone should ask the officers if it would be reasonable for one to conclude that those waiting to see for themselves the inscription should be included as part of “all the inhabitants”.

The Bible says in 2 Corinthians 3:17, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” Well, I don’t think there was much freedom going on around those “law enforcement officers” that day! Oh, the irony! I think the crack in the Liberty Bell, just got bigger.

Library shuts out Christians -- and everybody else

OneNewsNow reports:

An Ohio county public library has closed its meeting rooms to the public rather than allow them to be used by a Christian group.

George and Cathy Vandergriff wanted to host a Crown Financial Ministries "Financial Freedom" workshop in a public meeting room at the Clermont County, Ohio, public library. Tim Chandler, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the couple was told that, because the class would be quoting from the Bible, they could not hold it at the library. "The Supreme Court said, more than 25 years ago, that once you've opened up meeting space, you can't exclude anyone just because they're engaging in religious speech. And, here we are, we're still fighting this battle," Chandler contends.

Read more.

Obama's "Faith"

I just read an interview that Obama had with a reporter from the Chicago Tribune in 2004. The reporter, Cathleen Falsani, was working on a book about politicians and faith, and she asked some very pointed questions about his beliefs. Here are some excerpts ("GG" is "God Girl", Falsani's Internet nickname):

GG: Who’s Jesus to you?
(He laughs nervously)
OBAMA: Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

Note that there is nothing in this answer that indicates that Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us in the flesh, part of the Trinity. And the part about Jesus being a bridge to God is true as far as it goes, but it's also pretty vague and wishy-washy. Does Obama understand how Jesus is the bridge, why we need a bridge? I can't tell for sure, but later in the interview, he suggests that he really doesn't understand that Jesus is the ONLY way, the ONLY truth, the ONLY life. For starters, he mentions Gandhi as one of his main spiritual inspirations. Then there's this:

OBAMA: I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize [sic]. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell.
GG: You don’t believe that?
OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.

OK, I know the fact that millions of people will end up in hell is hard. It's not a pleasant thing to think about, and I wish it wasn't that way. But it is a clear Biblical principle and a tenet of our faith. Obama again seems a little confused on this point.

GG: Do you believe in sin?
OBAMA: Yes.
GG: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.
GG: What happens if you have sin in your life?
OBAMA: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.

Wow, just wow. It's sad that someone is so confused about sin. He wants to believe that he gets to define for himself what is right and wrong--sin is about his values, not God's values. This is moral relativism on full display.

(Aside: It also has eerie resonance with Michelle Obama's comment in a stump speech at UCLA in February: "That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation." These comments suggest that the Obamas think we can determine both what is wrong and how to fix it on our own, without God. In fact, Michelle comes dangerously close to suggesting that Barack is the one who can save our souls.)

I think this interview is interesting and important, not just for what it tells us about Obama's beliefs, values, and judgment, but also because it's a reminder that not all churches or all Christians have their theology straight. Obama makes comments about how he's suspicious of dogma, and he doesn't think one faith has a monopoly on truth. I've looked at the website from his (former) church, and I'm guessing a lot of other people there are confused and misled too. There isn't much indication that the Gospel from the Bible gets preached in that church. There is a lot of stuff about the evils of capitalism and the need for social justice--not so much about the need for Jesus. And for sure Trinity United Church of Christ isn't the only church with that problem.

This is the danger of moral relativism creeping into Christianity. We need to keep paying attention and making sure that our religious leaders are preaching the truth, and that our friends and acquaintances who call themselves Christians aren't following some secularized, untruthful version of the Gospel. We each have a responsibility to think about what we're taught in church and by other religious leaders and measure it against Biblical truth.

Other, more political points from the interview: If you read the whole interview, you'll notice that Obama talks about his close relationships with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger. He's also a little down on the intelligence of conservative voters--he thinks American voters have a surprising amount of common sense but have been confused by Fox News and talk radio.

Update: I've been thinking about this some more, and I just want to clarify in case I conflated politics and religion in a confusing way. As a voter, I don't require theological purity from my presidential candidate; I'm making my choice based on policy positions, judgment, and experience. As a voter, I'm concerned with Obama's faith/church only inasmuch as I would like to know how much he agrees with the anti-American, anti-capitalist, race-based preaching that seems to be fairly common there and what it says about his judgment. He did attend for 20 years and contribute a substantial amount of money, after all. As a Christian, I'm concerned with Obama's faith/church as an example of the creeping moral relativism that seems to be so common today and the need for us to combat it.

Understanding the Idea of “Separation of Church and State”

CNN host Lou Dobbs last week criticized church leaders for speaking out on the immigration debate. Here are my thoughts, which I sent to Mr. Dobbs:

It seems to me that you – like most in the MSM – have a completely backwards understanding of the whole concept of the separation of church and state. The intent of the so-called “separation of church and state” principle was to stop government from intruding into church affairs, not to stop the church from intruding into government affairs.

The founders were quite familiar with what happens (i.e. The Church of England) when government without boundaries intruded into church affairs. That is why under the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article 2 of Amendment 1) our government does not have the right to establish religion.

However, when the founders opposed a governmental establishment of religion, they did not mean they opposed a governmental establishment from religion. In fact, the founders believed religion was good for society. George Washington said, “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” In 1783, Dr. Benjamin Rush stated, “Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.” In 1785, James Madison said, “Religion is the basis and foundation of government.”

The separation of church and state idea was intended to prevent the government from intruding in the affairs of religious expression; it was not intended to stop religious people from being involved in governmental affairs. The First Amendment insures that all people – even those in government (e.g. the President himself) – freely have the right to practice their religious beliefs in all aspects of their life. This should therefore impact their public policy. Where the constraints of a government official’s duties come in under the Constitution would be to not infringe on other citizen’s right to believe what they want, and their “free exercise” of those beliefs. That is why Christians like Patrick Henry could celebrate the fact that “peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

In conclusion, the idea of a separation between these two social institutions was originally intended to protect religious people from a government establishment of religion while allowing religious people to establish government. Let me be clear: the whole concept of separation of church and state was intended to protect the church from the government, not to protect the government from the church.

Athlete’s Foot in the Mouth

When asked about the next day’s match up between himself and Ohio State star center Greg Oden, the 6’9” Memphis center Joey Dorsey said Friday that the 7-foot OSU freshman was "overrated as a big man.” He went on to compare their match up to David vs. Goliath where he was Goliath and Oden was David. The ironic thing about his bold statement – obviously unbeknownst to Dorsey – was that David actually won that epic biblical battle.

Considering the outcome of last weekend’s game, those words by Dorsey proved to be somewhat prophetic. Not only did the Buckeyes defeat the Tigers (and in-so-doing, seized from the Tigers the crown for the nation’s longest winning streak), but Oden clearly “slayed” Dorsey as well. Oden made 7 of 8 field goals, scored 17 points, had nine rebounds, blocked one shot, and affected various other shots. Dorsey, on the other hand, was held scoreless for the first time this season, missed two free throws, had no blocks or steals, and committed more fouls than rebounds (four to three).

After the game, Dorsey openly confessed in reference to the man who will most likely be the #1 pick in this year’s NBA draft, "I didn't know he was that strong.” I’m sure Goliath – if able to respond after his contest – would have said something similar about “the little man” David.

Now to turn from the physical to the spiritual, let me say this: that while perhaps a comical turn of events in the sports world, nevertheless, the sad reality is Dorsey’s biblical ignorance reflected in his pre-game trash-talk would not be unlike most Americans if asked about the Bible and other religious things. It’s just another sign of our ever-increasing secularized culture.

How about you? How spiritually ignorant are you? Here’s a religion test from our friends at Serious Times. Take a few minutes and see how you score. Then, let us know by posting your score in the comment section immediately below. (BTW, I scored a 76; not bad; but not the greatest either.)