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

Lessons From Las Vegas

This is third in a three-part series on risk-taking in the kingdom of God. I started with When Safe Sucks, followed that yesterday with Cautious Christianity v. Kingdom Christianity. I end here with some lessons I’ve learned in Las Vegas.

I love Las Vegas for a lot of reasons (but not for the prostitution and girly shows).  One of those reasons is Blackjack.

I stay away from the other games because I am smart enough to know you don’t build an $800 million hotel by just cooking a good steak.

Blackjack is different though.  If you learn to play according to basic strategy, you play at only about a 1% disadvantage to the house.  If you learn to count cards, you can play at anywhere from .05 to 1% advantage over the house.

I began playing years ago and over the years have learned to count cards.  Don’t get too excited though because to make money, real money, counting cards you need to play on teams, and that’s the sort of thing that gets you a date in the back room with Nunzio. I just love to play, and by playing well and counting cards hopefully win a little money in the process.

One of the most important skills in basic Blackjack strategy is doubling down, which means doubling your bet after the dealer deals you two cards but before you’ve seen both of the dealer’s cards. To pull up to the nearly even odds Blackjack can offer, you have to know when to double down and be willing to do so, otherwise you might as well be over at the slot machines throwing your money away and helping them build the next billion dollar hotel.

Here is where all this is going.  The Bible provides principles by which to live our lives, basic strategy if you will, and we can plod along making reasonable, cautious decisions about our careers, callings, finances and futures, but there will come times when the Lord calls us to double down, to take a risk.

The Bible says, “My righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in Him.” (Heb. 10:38).  That means if the Lord calls you to take a risk and you chicken out, He’ll not be happy with you, and you may miss your destiny.

So, know when to double down, and when the time comes, do it. GS

Cautious Christianity v. Kingdom Christianity

I blogged about risk-taking in my last post, When Safe Sucks.  I’ve decided to camp out around this subject of risk-taking for a three-part series because I think it an important subject for Christians.

I think it important  for Christians because Christians, are, on the whole, one of the most conservative and cautious groups of people I know.  Maybe you can think of  a more cautious group.  Perhaps the financial consultants for AARP are more cautious. I don’t know.

It puzzles me though that the Church doesn’t produce more risk-takers. Think about it. You can only enter the kingdom of God as a citizen if you are willing to lose your life (i.e. to save it). (Matthew 10:39).  Kingdom citizenship is an all or nothing proposition. Jesus said, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:62).

And yet, after risking it all to enter the Kingdom, once inside Christians are subjected to the culture of cautiousness that permeates the Church, and they begin to play it safe.  They opt for cautious Christianity over Kingdom Christianity.

I understand why it happens.  So much of morality is premised on restraint and moderation that it’s easy to see caution as a common denominator and virtue and therefore, its opposite, risk, as a vice.

But risk, like money, is amoral. It can be used for good or bad, to save or destroy. And to disavow it, like taking a vow of poverty, can be to place a roadblock on the path of one’s destiny. Sometimes the only way forward is across a dangerous stretch of road, or through a raging river. Unfortunately, too many Christians have stopped on the bank, having forgotten how to risk it all to go forward.

Christians should be known as the greatest risk-takers. They have the promise of a Divine Enabler (Philippians 4:13), a Divine Indweller (Romans 8:11) and a cosmic safety net (Romans 8:28).

When’s the last time you risked something for the kingdom of God? GS

When Safe Sucks

Safety is usually a good thing.  We like safe cars, safe airlines and safety locks on guns.  We seek safe investments, safe places to live and safe schools for our kids.  We seek more income because we believe it will make us more safe and secure.  We buy insurance in case the unexpected occurs.  We are constantly looking for ways to reduce risk, and that is usually a good thing.

There are times, however, when being safe is not a good thing, like when God is calling you to take a risk.  The Bible records that one Spring “at the time when kings go out to battle” King David stayed home in Jerusalem.  (2 Sam. 11:1).

Staying in Jerusalem was certainly the safe thing to do.  It was a lot less likely David would be run through with a spear or have his melon lopped off  in Jerusalem than on the battlefield, but it was “the time when kings go out to battle.”  It was a time for King David to take a risk and lead his people into battle.  It was his calling.  Instead  David played it safe by staying in Jerusalem, ended up being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which led to horrible moral failings.

Hebrews 11 contains a list of heroes from the Bible, people who out of obedience to God did things like leaving the security of a home to go to a foreign land without knowing where they were going or what awaited them; or others who left a life of luxury in the Pharaoh’s court to be a deliverer to an oppressed people; or others still who shut the mouths of lions, willingly endured torture and suffered death.

The Bible celebrates these men and women as having achieved greatness in the eyes of God and men, but they would not have, and they would not have been remembered, had they not been risk-takers.  Had they not been willing to take a risk they would not have fulfilled their destiny.

Being safe is usually a good thing, except when God calls you to take a risk.  Then safe sucks. GS

The Linchpin Of Christianity, Part II

(c)iStockphoto.com/McInich

When I’m litigating a case, I try to find out early in the case the other side’s best argument. I may not know all the evidence they will present at trial, but I do know they know, and therefore the argument they lead with is the one they usually think gives them the best chance of winning.

In Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, the “other side,” the opponents of Christianity, were the Jews. They had a vested interest in their religion. This was particularly true of the religious leaders who made their living by their religion. The Jewish leaders’ opposition to Christianity is best shown in that they were the ones who were responsible for turning Jesus over to the Romans for crucifixion.

After Jesus’ resurrection, the argument the Jews decided upon to disprove the resurrection was that Jesus’ disciples had stolen the body. Given what the Jews had to lose, we must conclude this was the best argument they had. There is something else we can know: It must have been undisputed the tomb was empty.

The easiest way to disprove Jesus’ resurrection would have been to march to the tomb and produce the body. That they didn’t means the tomb was definitely empty. Second, it must also mean there was no dispute about where Jesus had been buried.

So, the Jews said Jesus had not been resurrected from the dead but that the disciples had stolen His body from the tomb.

There’s one problem with this argument.  Actually, there are a number of problems with this argument but one very, very big one.

The disciples, the same disciples the Jews said stole Jesus’ body from the tomb, ended up giving their lives in martyrdom based on the truth of the resurrection. All they had to do to avoid martyrdom was to deny the resurrection, to deny Jesus was who He said He was.

Some might argue that people throughout history have given their lives based on mistaken ideas about God. I agree.

The difference here is that if the disciples stole the body of Jesus, that means they gave their lives for something they knew was a lie. That is, of course, absurd.

The better explanation, and the one that is consistent with the disciples’ transformation from despair and timidness to joy and boldness is the historical fact of the resurrection. GS