Americans, Behold Your Future

In his second inaugural address our president assured us, "My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment." What moment? The moment when we seize the limitless possibilities of America. We are ending a decade of war, you see, and our "economic recovery has begun", you understand, and now "we will seize it — so long as we seize it together."

What are we seizing, then? Equal rights. The president quoted from the Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident" and went on to assure us that all "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." That was the premise of his speech. Let's grasp these rights endowed by the Creator!

What rights? Certainly economic "fair play" is in view. (Read "We need to equalize the economy, taking away from those with more so that more with less have more.") Certainly "a great nation must care for the vulnerable" ... as long as "the vulnerable" are not the most vulnerable — unborn children. In other words, the "rights" endowed by the Creator will be carefully distributed by the government. The rich and the unborn will have less than the poor and the women.

How does that make sense? "We have always understood that when times change, so must we." Oh, I see. Got it. So what must change with the times? "A little girl born into the bleakest poverty" must have "the same chance to succeed as anybody else." That does not mean that she has to earn her way like everybody else. It means that we need to take away from those who have so that those who don't will. It means that, while "every citizen deserves a basic measure of security", the "security" in question here is universal health care. It means a nanny state to take care of everyone. And it means, above all else, that true happiness is found in having stuff. So we will need to provide stuff. It means that we'll have to stop climate change because certainly climate change is not security. And have no doubt, fellow Americans. It means that the perpetual, longstanding definition of marriage must change. Remember! This is due to the rights endowed by the Creator! Thus, the Creator demands that all of history and all of Scripture and all of the Church for all time admit its complete and total failure to comprehend this singular matter and agree that we have finally figured it out. Marriage has never been about husband and wife, father and mother, "the two shall become one". It has always been about personal preference and personal pleasure. God demands that we change. We must alter our view so that "our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." Because, you see, "love" and "commitment" are the only acceptable definition of "marriage" today. And when times change, so must we.

Are you ready, America? You voted for it. You have given the "popular mandate". As understood by the current administration, you have decided that "equal rights" does not include "freedom of religion" if it violates your views. You have decided that those who earn more than others ought to lose that income in favor of those who do not earn as much. You have decided that God has changed His mind (or has lost it) and from time immemorial the human definition of marriage and the biblical definition of marriage has always been wrong. You have decided that "protecting the vulnerable" is a matter of selection, where the most vulnerable deserve no protection and we'll work our way up from there. That's what the president that you've elected understands you to believe. Be ready for the promised changes. You asked for it. As for me, I was not made for this moment. I was not made for the moment when our "limitless possibilities" include shaking our fists in the face of God, radical irrationality, and nonsensical administration. Not my idea of "limitless possibilities". We need to "seize it together" he said. You'll have to do it without me. But you guys go ahead. See how that plays out for you.

What You Cannot Say

I started doing some digging into this whole Chick-Fil-A kerfuffel and I am now thoroughly confused.

First, the story as we "know" it. Someone asked the COO of the organization, Dan Cathy, what their position was on gay marriage. He was opposed. Now several cities are preventing Chick-Fil-A from opening stores in their communities because they don't share the same values ...

As it turns out, no such story took place. On July 16, the Baptist Press ran a story about Dan Cathy as COO of Chick-Fil-A. Cathy admitted in the interview of being "guilty as charged" in standing on biblical and family values. "We don't claim to be a Christian business," he told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina because Christ died for people, not corporations. "But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles." So they do things like not opening on Sundays ... because that would be a biblical principle. And they invest in WinShape. WinShape is so named because their goal is to help "shape winners". So they have camps and retreats and foster care programs and marriage programs (helping people prepare for marriage, etc.) and such. So far, a non-story. Where did Cathy get himself in trouble? "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that." That's it. No, seriously, that's all.

It was CNN's report on this on July 19th that started the fireworks. Here's what they said. "'Guilty as charged,' Cathy said when asked about his company's support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage." Is that what the Baptist Press reported? No, here is their line: "Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. 'Well, guilty as charged,' said Cathy when asked about the company's position."

Odd ... really odd. For some reason there wasn't a single word in the entire Baptist Press story that referenced "gay marriage". Not one. There were comments about "traditional family" and "the biblical definition of the family unit", but not a single word about "gay marriage". In a radio interview, Cathy was quoted as saying, "I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.' I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we can try to define what marriage is all about."

So where do we stand now? It is "anti-gay" to support the traditional family. And apparently everyone (despite the lively and full disagreement that it is so) knows that "the biblical definition of the family unit" is "the union of a man and a woman" to the exclusion of "same-sex" unions. If you believe that the Bible is accurate, you are anti-gay. If you believe that the Bible is true, you do not share the values of Chicago or Boston or a host of loud protesters who want Chick-Fil-A out of business and out of sight. If you support the traditional family, you do not share the values of the majority and you are a narrow-minded, hateful bigot. So while people like Boston Mayor Menino are assuring everyone that "We're an open city, we're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion", they do not mean the inclusion of the traditional family, the inclusion of biblical values, or the inclusion of people who hold a different view on whatever topic they have chosen to be their "intolerant" and "bigot" topic of the day. The dichotomy is seen in Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel who embraces Louis Farrakhan and ignores his blatant anti-semitism, but rejects Chick-Fil-A despite their affirmation of non-discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. And the "NOH8" ("No Hate") group is turning their hate on the company by calling for a total boycott.

And the cognitive dissonance just gets worse and worse.

Update
In today's CNN story, you can read about a comment on the story. "'How backward and ignorant ... how sad,' CNN reader Joe Brown said. 'No more Chick-fil-A for me. I am not in the stone-casting business as a Christian.'" Excuse me, Joe, but isn't boycotting a restaurant because their COO has a particular view that doesn't affect the restaurant and doesn't attack anyone exactly casting stones???

Update #2
As expected, San Francisco is joining in the mindless hate, but isn't it sad that "the city of brotherly love" is, too? From the letter written by City Councilman Jim Kenney to Chick-Fil-A, "Take a hike and take your intolerance with you. There is no place for this type of hate in our great City of Brotherly and Sisterly Affection." Seriously, folks, do you not see the dichotomy of "take a hike" and "City of Brotherly and Sisterly Affection"???

More Cognitive Dissonance

If you think about the concept of cognitive dissonance -- holding two contradictory ideas at the same time -- and then look around you, I would suspect that you might begin to think that we are living in a world defined by the concept. We seem to live there rather than touch on it from time to time.

Take, for instance, those spiritual folks who say, "I'm spiritual; I just don't believe in organized religion." What are the options? They don't believe in organized religion, so they are in favor of disorganized religion? It's like the teenagers these days who rebel to be "individuals" ... just like all their other friends. Religion to these people (and there seems to be a lot of them) is only good if it is "individual", not "organized". That, of course, would make it contradictory in itself, but, look, we're preferring cognitive dissonance here, so be quiet about that, okay?

There is this whole problem of having a view on a particular moral question. In today's society, it is considered evil to point to the danger of evil. Really? Isn't considering it evil a moral question? And aren't they, then, doing that which they consider evil? On the other hand, if something is evil, wouldn't it be good to hold the view that it is and warn people from the consequences? "Watch out! There's a snake here!" "Why don't you just keep your evil views to yourself??!!" Cognitive dissonance.

Indeed, in today's moral climate, it would appear that it's worse to judge sin than to commit it. Sure, sure, you may think that homosexual behaviors (or adultery or fornication or a host of other "acceptable sins") are sinful, but it's far worse for you to point it out than it is for them to commit them. And pointing out that violating God's commands is a dangerous proposition won't make it any better. "Yes, I know you think I'm drinking poison here; but you're definitely bad for suggesting it." Cognitive dissonance.

Quite closely related, then, is the position that judgment is evil and intolerant and I will judge you and be intolerant of you doing it. Why is it that this doesn't collide with the thinking processes? I remember doing it once myself and hearing myself say (fortunately only to myself), "If there's one thing I can't tolerate it's intolerance." Hey! That's crazy! Wake up! Cognitive dissonance.

Then there's the whole problem of absolutes. So many will hold that morality is relative, not absolute, but will insist that their morality is correct and yours is not. Like Pilate, they will scorn the idea of truth and make such a position a truth statement. "Absolutes? They don't exist! Absolutely!" Cognitive dissonance.

We seem to get more and more comfortable with holding contradictory beliefs in opposite hands and fighting valiantly for both. Even Christians. "I believe that the Bible is the Word of God ... but I'll gladly take on the world's contradictory viewpoint as my own when I am so inclined." (Just an example.) It is indeed crazy, but we do it. And as I mentioned before, it clearly seems to be a symptom of the mind tainted by sin. You see, sin rots the brain (Rom 1:28) and we humans just seem to keep stepping up to prove it.

Legal Cognitive Dissonance

You know what cognitive dissonance is, right? It is the mental discomfort you experience when you hold as true two (or more) conflicting views. Here's a simple example. "It's wrong to steal ... but it's okay for me to take office supplies from work." Huh? That sort of thing.

Here's a really clear example. H.R. 1997 is called "Laci and Conner's Law" after Laci and Conner Peterson who were murdered by Scott Peterson. Laci was Scott's wife, and Conner was their unborn child. This law states, "If [a] person ... intentionally kills or attempts to kill [an] unborn child, that person shall ... be punished ... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The law is "The Protection of Unborn Children" act and defines the "unborn" as human. The law goes on to state, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution ... of any person for conduct relating to an abortion ..." Thus, while the unborn are indeed human children and killing them is murder, it is not murder if it is abortion. Cognitive dissonance.

Recently New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed a ban on all sugary drinks over 16 ounces in New York City. This is in keeping with other bans such as outlawing transfats in restaurants. While corporations that sell such products are, of course, upset about it, the New York City board of Health is in strong support of such a ban. Now, Mayor Bloomberg's position is unequivocally pro-choice on the issue of abortion. So Mayor Bloomberg et.al. are of the very clear view that it is a fundamental right to choose to murder your baby, but not your right to choose what to eat. Cognitive dissonance.

The problem with cognitive dissonance, of course, is that too many people are so used to suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and ungodliness that they no longer experience the dissonance of holding two patently opposing viewpoints.

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of uncomfortable tension you get when you try to hold two conflicting thoughts in your head at the same time. We've all experienced it, I'm sure. Of course, since my primary focus here is matters of Christian concern, my primary cognitive dissonance issues will point there.

Let's say that you believe it is wrong to kill animals ... and then you discover that God ordered thousands of animals killed often for sacrifices. Or you believe that the death penalty is immoral ... and then you read that God ordered the death penalty in many instances for a variety of crimes. Maybe you're quite sure that science accurately explains the origins of the universe ... and then you read the Genesis account. Perhaps you think that there is no fundamental difference between men and women ... and then you read that Paul didn't allow women to teach men and that wives are to submit to their husbands. Or, here, how about this? You know lots of good people who aren't Christians ... and then you read "There is none good, no not one."

Cognitive dissonance is the description of what is occurring in these (and many other) examples. You have your own core beliefs ... and then you run up against another of your core beliefs. What do you do? How do you resolve this problem? Different people have different approaches, but, essentially, there are only three. One approach is to hold both beliefs at the same time, as contradictory as they are. They put themselves in an awkward position, trying to logically defend a contradiction (which, by definition, is illogical). Another very popular approach is to throw out the new paradigm in favor of the old. That is, "I've always believed X, so Y just can't be true." I suspect there are several reasons that this is so prevalent. First there's pride. "You're saying that I've been wrong all this time???!!" Then there's the emotional connection. "Hey, I learned that from my mom/pastor/favorite person ... and you're telling me they are all wrong?" Dropping an old paradigm for a new can be difficult and disconcerting. The third approach, then, is to drop the old for the new. The person encountering the dissonance says something like, "Well, I had an opposing view, but it appears to say something different, so I'll discard my original view in favor of the new."

Now, I'm sure you're well aware that this is an oversimplification. Usually people use some combination of these three. Perhaps they won't see it as one of these three. For instance, when they explain away the new view as not what it actually says, they'll think, "I'm just being wise here", not "I'm unwilling to change my original view for a new one." Conversely, they might say, "I am not even going to think about it; I'll just toss out my original view and take the new one because 'the Bible is always right'." And they don't think ... many of them.

A thinking approach might equally be any of these three positions. A thinking person might tell himself/herself "I've always been told that there is no difference between men and women. I've carefully examined the texts about men and women/husbands and wives and cannot find support for my original view in Scripture. It would seem that I need to change my view." It is possible to think, "I've seen the evidence from science and I don't know how to refute it. Perhaps I am not properly understanding what the Genesis account of Creation is actually saying. Let's see if I can correlate the two." You could say, "I believe God is good, and this passage seems to portray Him as bad. While I don't accept that He's bad, I'll still accept this passage as true and rely on my ignorance of the total character of God to retain both positions -- God is good, and this passage is accurate."

So ... what approach would I recommend? Well, think it through. Here are a few points in the order that I would recommend:

1. Ask "What does Scripture say?" That would include "What does the text say?" (including context, type of passage -- doctrine, narrative, poetry, wisdom, etc.) as well as "What does the rest of Scripture say?" since Scripture is first and foremost best interpreted by Scripture. If what you read in a passage contradicts what you read in another passage, there is valid reason to question your understanding (as opposed to the veracity of Scripture). If one passage implies something you've always believed, but another explicitly denies it, you may need to make a change. On the other hand, if there is no contradiction in Scripture, be prepared to change what you believe so that it aligns with what Scripture says.

2. Ask, "Why does this cause me problems?" If you are confused because your experience or personal views are getting in the way, then you may need to overwrite your experience or personal views. "I always thought people were like this" is not a good reason to conclude "the Bible must be wrong." Very often people refuse to change their perceptions in the face of clear biblical content because the cost is too high. "That would mean that I'm in sin" or "if that's true, then people I love are in deep trouble." I would submit that the reverse is true. If you are actually in sin or the people you love are actually in deep trouble, redefining it to protect yourself or them is a disservice ... to both.

3. Find out what historic Christianity has said on the passage. This is 3rd on my list because historically the Church has made mistakes, but if the Holy Spirit truly leads His own into all truth, then there should be a thread throughout Church history that holds one common view from beginning to end. If your conclusions are novel, question them. If your understanding defies historic orthodoxy, on what basis do you think you're right when they've all been wrong? If you come to the same conclusion that historic Christianity did, especially if it is in opposition to your original view, be very careful before you reject it.

4. Ultimately, determine your source. Are you, in the end, going to go with yourself as your source, or are you going to submit to the Bible as your source? Is God's written Word sufficient, or are you going to hold yourself in higher esteem? Your call. Make it the right one.

Let's look at an example. You know lots of nice people. You know atheists who are good husbands (or wives) and good parents and good citizens. They do lots of good. Then you read,

"For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one'" (Rom 3:9-12).

Wow! Didn't see that coming. So, let's take a look. What is the context? Well, Paul has just spent Romans 1:18 through 3:8 explaining that sin is a problem, that God's just wrath is against sinners, and we're all in a heap of trouble with God. The context, then, supports the passage as written. But does other Scripture? Well, later we read, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), "you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness" (Rom 6:16), and "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:7-8). Wow! Just as harsh! And over in 1 Corinthians we read, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). Then in Ephesians Paul writes, "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience -- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph 2:1-3). And on it goes. It appears that the Scriptures hold a dim view of the capabilities of natural man for any possibility of good.

Still, I know good people, so perhaps the text doesn't mean what it appears to say. Maybe it's hyperbole, you know? Let's look at that. The Bible certainly uses hyperbole at times. In Mark 1:33 we read, "And the whole city was gathered together at the door." Seriously, Mark? The whole city? Well, no, of course not. He's trying to get across the large number of people that showed up. But ... what if he actually intended to say "every man, woman, and child"? Well, he'd need a few more words, but it would look something like this: "And the whole city -- every single person -- was gathered together at the door." You see, in that case Mark would have been saying "the whole city -- and I'm not speaking in hyperbole." We find this type of thing in Genesis. "But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house" (Gen 19:4). Do you see the care taken to explain this? When you first read "the men of the city", you might think "hyperbole -- overstatement to make a point". But the passage explains carefully -- it's not hyperbole. It is "the men of Sodom" (as opposed to Gomorrah), "both young and old" (as opposed to any particular age group), and "to the last man" (as opposed to "a whole lot"). This description is designed to say that actually every single adult male in the city of Sodom was outside of Lot's door. So ... what do we see in the passage in question? Paul uses this descriptive tool, doesn't he? When he says, "There is none righteous" he doesn't leave room for hyperbole. He emphasizes it: "no, not one". When he says "no one does good" he doesn't leave room for misunderstanding. He emphasizes again "not even one". He is clarifying, "I'm not speaking in hyperbole" (or, to be more accurate, "the psalmist I'm quoting wasn't speaking in hyperbole"). He actually means all.

Now we have a choice. We can redefine our experience -- those good non-believers we know -- or we can redefine what is plain in the passage, allowing our experience to override the text. If we chose the latter, it would not be because of context or contradiction of other Scripture. It would be on the basis of our personal experience and preference. Essentially we would be saying, "That passage cannot mean what it clearly intends to say because I trust my instinct and experience over that text, so I will not accept it at face value." And we would do so at our own risk.

It's important to read the Bible for all it is worth. It is important to know what it says both in immediate context and in its entire context. The Bible is our sole source on matters of faith and practice, God's Word to us. We should "rightly divide" -- handle carefully -- the Word. But be very, very careful if you decide that despite all the texts and contexts and history and commentaries that you're right and they're all wrong. Be very, very careful.