Muslims On Planes

Like me, you probably saw last week that NPR fired Juan Williams for stating on Fox he gets nervous when he’s flying and sees Muslims on the plane. The story was hard to miss. Even NPR, not wanting to be left out of the news bonanza they created, covered the story.

I like Juan Williams. He’s always seemed to me an intellectually honest man who would concede another’s argument when correct, even if it didn’t line up with Williams’s political affiliations. That’s more than I can say for most of what I see from the talking heads on Fox, CNN and the other networks. And I think that’s part of what gets me about Williams’s sacking at NPR.

If you’ve not seen the entire segment from The O’Reilly Factor, I encourage you to watch it because you will see that, while Williams did make the statement attributed to him, the context of the statement is almost the exact opposite of what is being portrayed by the media and implied by NPR through it’s decision to fire Williams.

In the segment, Williams makes his candid admission as a predicate to his argument that people should be careful about making sweeping generalizations about Muslims. It’s O’Reilly who takes the reactionary position, which Williams tried to counter when O’Reilly allowed him to talk (which, as usual, wasn’t much).

Williams’s take, if you can piece it together with O’Reilly’s interruptions, is the right one. Even though people may may be concerned about getting on a plane with Muslims–and as Williams seems to suggest, there is nothing unreasonable about that fear given the multitude of Islamic terrorist acts directed at Americans–we must be careful about painting Muslims with a broad brush.

That is the right take. It’s not the politically correct take, which would insist on telling Williams he should not be concerned when getting on a plane with Muslims;  nor is it the reactionary take that would label all Muslims latent terrorists. The tragedy here is not Williams’s statement but that he got fired for it.

The termination reflects poorly on NPR, and its CEO, Vivian Schiller, who compounded the blunder with a gaffe that was offensive. Schiller said Williams should have kept remarks about Muslims between himself and “his psychiatrist and publicist.”

I don’t know if Williams sees a psychiatrist. If he doesn’t Schiller’s remark is slanderous. If he does, the remark may be a HIPAA violation. Either way the remark displays a maturity better suited for talk radio than National Public Radio.

Schiller, to her credit, apparently realized this and quickly apologized to Williams publicly. But I’m still waiting to see if she will commit the self-sacking necessary to effectuate the consistent application of NPR company policy. I’m not holding my breath though because I suspect she values self-preservation over fairness (which, in fairness to her, makes her no different from most of us).

So, there you have it: another injustice in a fallen world that needs more of Jesus. GS

Why Words Matter

CNN’s Anderson Cooper is worked up because in the trailer for Vince Vaughn’s new movie, The Dilemma, Vaughn’s character refers to a car as being “gay.”

Cooper said, “We gotta do something to make those words…unacceptable, cause those words are hurting kids.”

I guess Cooper is referring to homosexual kids who might take Vaughn’s character’s use of the word “gay” in a negative context and therefore as a moral judgment of their sexual conduct.

To the extent Cooper is condemning the bullying of homosexuals I agree with him 100%, and citizens of the kingdom of God should be the first to condemn such conduct.  The problem is I think Cooper is saying more. I think he’s concerned the word “gay” may take on a negative connotation.

If you’ve seen the clip from the trailer you know Vaughn’s character is not referring to a person but a car. He uses the word “gay” negatively, implying the car is effeminate, not the kind of car the average guy wants.

The irony is the homosexual community has already taken the word “gay,” a perfectly good and positive word, and, by using it synonymously with the word “homosexual,” given it a negative connotation.

Think about it. Do you ever use the word “gay” in a positive context any  more? Do you ever say, “I felt so gay today,” or “I was in a such a gay mood”?  The only time you see “gay” used in a positive light is in old movies, before the word was hijacked by an interest group with a public relations problem.

My point is not to pick on homosexuals.  It’s not just homosexuals who have indulged in this wordplay.  Heterosexuals who call adultery an “affair” are replacing a negative word with a positive one and impliedly redefining the morality of their conduct.

Anyway, that’s the point I wanted to make, you know, the irony. . . oh, and also, that words matter.  Be careful how you use them. GS

Worldviews In The Jury Room

(c)iStockphoto.com/3pod

Yesterday I was in a CLE (Continuing Legal Education) course. CLE is how lawyers keep their skills honed and keep up on this latest changes in the law. Today was a day long mock trial conducted by some of the best trial lawyers in the country, complete with a jury who deliberated at the end of the day in the adjacent room while I and 200 trial lawyers watched via live video.

While the jury ultimately reached the right verdict (juries usually do), how they got there was a bit surprising to me. From the beginning I saw the jury divide in their deliberations according to worldview.

The conservative jurors were obvious and their remarks quickly revealed their inherent trust of companies and distrust of plaintiffs and lawsuits. On the other side were the liberal jurors, who have an inherent distrust for corporations and tend to side with individuals in such disputes. They all heard the same evidence, but they interpreted it very differently, not because of the quality of the evidence but the prism of their worldview.

This shouldn’t have surprised me. I’ve been picking juries for twenty years and have always conducted voir dire based on this assumption. I guess what surprised me was how blatant and conspicuous it was.

Now, here’s where I’m going with all this. There was an objective truth about the evidence, but that truth was distorted by the opposing worldviews through which the jurors viewed it. The key in reaching a true verdict was as much about having the correct worldview as it was about reason. Truth was as much about how they saw as what they saw.

In this respect, what’s true of juries is true of life in general. That’s why I write so much about worldview. If Christians want to see things the way they really are, they don’t need a conservative worldview or a liberal worldview but a Kingdom worldview. That worldview comes first from being obedient to Jesus, which enables one to have the proper worldview, to know Truth. (John 8:32-22).

If you can do that, you are ready to serve on a jury and in life. GS

Movies For Teaching Worldview

When the Apostle Paul preached in Athens, he quoted Greek poets. (Acts 17:16-34). Paul was trying to connect with the Athenians by demonstrating he understood their worldview and using that point of connection as a segue to the Gospel.

In the United States movies, not poetry, are the prevailing cultural medium. That’s one of the reasons the wife and I are avid movie-goers. We want to understand the worldview of the prevailing culture so we can be more effective in sharing the Gospel.

With that, here are five movies one could use to teach a Sunday school or small group about worldview and modern culture.

1.  Crimes & Misdemeanors (1989). In this movie, writer and director Woody Allen asks the questions, “If on earth evil is not punished and virtue is not rewarded, is there really a God and how should we then live?” It’s a common question, for which Christians should have an answer.  This movie was nominated for 3 Academy Awards: Best Original Screenplay (Woody Allen), Best Director (Woody Allen) and Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Martin Landau).

2.  Unforgiven (1992).  Clint Eastwood directed and starred in this anti-western western, which is a rebuttal to westerns where it was always clear who was the good guy and who was the bad guy. In it Eastwood asks, “What is the true nature of man?” Again, it’s a legitimate question. Do you agree with Eastwood’s answer or does Christianity provide a better one? This movie won an Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Gene Hackman) and Best Film Editing.

3.  Up In The Air (2009).  George Clooney stars in this movie, which pits man’s quest for career success against his need for true community. I reviewed the movie here in a previous post. This movie was nominated for 6 Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director (Jason Reitman) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Jason Reitman/Sheldon Turner) and Best Actor in a Leading Role (George Clooney).

4.  Match Point (2005).  This is a Woody Allen movie that explores the question of whether our lives are determined by chance.  Allen is one of my favorite filmmakers because he asks all the right questions and mixes in enough humor to make the discussion entertaining and profound at the same time. Unfortunately, Allen has all the wrong answers. This movie was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (Woody Allen).

5.  Burn After Reading (2008). This movie is from Joel and Ethan Coen, who like Woody Allen, ask the right questions, make you laugh, then suggest the wrong answers.  Don’t let the humor in their movies mislead you though because they ask serious questions. Burn After Reading suggests our lives are guided by chance and if there is a God who sees all, he is just a spectator.

By suggesting these are good movies for Sunday school or a small group, I’m not suggesting they are rated G.  If they were we wouldn’t be talking about using them to understand the prevailing non-Christian culture. You will have to decide how much to show and appropriately warn those who choose to watch them. They are instructive, and those Christians who are prepared to respond to the serious questions they posit will be better equipped to expand the kingdom of God in their sphere of influence. GS

3 Presuppositions That Make You Ineffective In The Kingdom

(c)iStockphoto.com/mattjeacock

Presuppositions are foundational beliefs that are usually assumed and unexamined.  The are generally not adopted as a result of study and investigation.  The are caught rather than taught.

That makes presuppositions particularly dangerous because chances are even if you aren’t consciously aware of your presuppositions, you will act on them.  They affect what think and how you interpret reality.

Here are three presuppositions that will make you ineffective and irrelevant as a Christian.

1.    Dualism. Dualism is the belief that the spiritual is good and matter is bad; or as Tarzan would say, “Heaven good.  Earth bad.”  It separates reality into the sacred and profane, the spiritual and the secular.  It believes the full-time ministry is the highest calling and that so-called secular vocations are not as important.  It’s what leads you to call Amy Grant, Michael W. Smith and Switchfoot sell-outs for crossing over from Christian to secular music.  Dualism, however, misses the mark.  Jesus’ incarnation invalidates dualism.  How can one maintain the dualistic belief that matter is evil when God took it on to become man in the person of Jesus?  Moreover, when God finished with creation, he said it was “very good.”  (Gen. 1:31).

2.    Escapism. Escapism is an excessive fixation on heaven that results in seeking an escape from the world.  If you’ve ever been accused of being so heavenly-minded you are no earthly good you may suffer from this presuppostion.  Another symptom of Escapism is rapture fever.  Regardless of what your eschatology is, any eschatology that leads you to abandon the earth is clearly contrary to the command of Jesus, who prayed for His disciples the night He was arrested, “I do not ask You to take them out of the world…” (John 17:15).  Too many Christians are obsessed with getting out of the world; Jesus is trying to get them back into it.

3.  Passivism. Passivism is the presupposition that God generally works for us rather than in and through us. For example, Passivists expect God to take problems away from them rather than giving them the strength and wisdom to solve them.  God will work for you if you are Christian, but He has chosen to work primarily in and through Christians.  Consider these scriptures: “God is at work in you, both to will and work for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13); “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” (Phil 4:13); “Christ in you, is the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27); “Greater is He who is in you than he that is in the world.” (I John 4:4).

If you suffer from one or more of these three presuppositions they are probably sapping your effectiveness as Christian. They will lead you to spend all your time in so-called spiritual pursuits and with other believers rather than engaging the world, and you will find yourself increasingly irrelevant and unable to relate to non-Christians and the world.  Have you caught any of these presuppositions? GS