It occurred to me today that I’m glad when people share my sensitivities.
Comedian Louis C.K. made an appearance on Conan this past week. As Conan interviewed him, the topic of cell phones came up and they discussed why one shouldn’t let children have cell phones. The interview actually went further as Louis C.K. began talking about the impact cell phones have on us.
I’ll mostly just let the interview speak for itself, but there are two things I feel obligated to mention. First, Louis C.k. is a crude comedian. I don’t like most of his stuff. However, every once and a while, he shows glimmers of profound intelligence beyond the attempts to shock his audience. So, be forewarned that some of his comments may fall in line with his crudeness. Second, I wouldn’t necessarily say we’re escaping sadness as he puts it. Yet, his story is a great example of how technology demands that we ignore our basic human-ness.
It occurred to me today that Christianity has suffered from the soundbite culture just as much as anything else.
I recently found the following video. If you haven’t seen it yet, take a quick look.
This video contains many of the tired old arguments and caricaturizations I have heard ad nausea for years. Frankly, I am a bit weary of hearing my faith reduced to a soundbite (an incorrect one at that) and then used to justify something so counter to it. Because this video is so succinct and pithy, I thought I would take a few moments to dissect and address the many points that compose these old arguments.
1) Starting at 0:37 – Do not be fooled. When the Prime Minister is using the word “conscience,” he is not using it the same way as the Church has used it. He is making an emotional argument here. We’ll see this throughout the points made as the prime minister effectively portrays himself as “loving” and those opposed to “marriage equality” as “unloving.” This is no small point. The world in which we live is something other than modern. By modern, I mean privileging and honoring logic and logical arguments above everything else. Whatever we are now, whether it be postmodern or something else, the world now privileges and honors emotion above all else. As a result, arguments take place in the sphere of emotion more than logic. This is a problem for everyone. Once someone makes an emotional argument, there’s very little you can say, especially in a “politically correct” society. It takes time to appreciate the emotions being expressed while trying to show the incoherence in using it as an argument. Of course, in a soundbite culture, this is nearly impossible. Therefore, arguments are won in the sphere of emotion more than logic. They even border on the logical fallacy. By keeping this in mind, you can be ready for it and, perhaps, even be immune to the ad hominem attacks being made against you.
2) At 0:47 “it was the right thing to do” – After laying his emotional argument (undeveloped as it is at this point) on the table, he supports it with the concept of “right.” However, stop and think about this for a moment. What makes something “right”? I assume he means morally right. So, where does he go to find the standard of morality? Well, I’ve already tipped my hand by suggesting he finds it in his emotions. Whether or not I’m right, we Christians ought to be mindful of people claiming moral “rightness.” There is only one place it comes from: the Lord of creation. He set the law for His creation to operate smoothly. Anyone claiming “rightness” apart from this law is effectively saying they don’t want to live by it.
3) Starting at 0:50 – Sadly, this argument has won the day, because of Christians who do not take seriously the reality of sin. Simply put, if people are born gay (note: nobody can really know this, since homosexuality doesn’t manifest until sexual puberty), then it has everything to do with sin and nothing to do with “how we’re built.” I know our culture has effectively blocked out these words, but God created man and woman for marriage (Genesis 2, Ephesians 5, Matthew 19, to name a few). We were built for that type of relationship. Sin has permeated creation so entirely that we are born into sin. Thus, we have abnormalities like birth defects, babies born before term, chromosome problems, “natural” tendencies, and more. Now, this argument should highlight a place where the Church has failed. We have expected people to be blameless before accepting them. We have expected holiness before acknowledging the sanctity of all life. We have expected perfection before helping people through their struggles. We must strive to do better. We do so by taking sin a bit more seriously.
4) Starting at 1:20 – To be honest, this is probably the slickest rhetorical move the Prime Minister makes. He does not differentiate the way “we’re built” from the way “we are.” As discussed in the last point, a serious attitude towards sin can help us differentiate these two states of being. When we do, we can then say, “I accept who you are and where you are, but I also want you to see what God sees and love what God desires for your life. He wants you free from the burden of sin.” In the American Church, I believe this is our chief struggle: accepting people for who they are, loving them for who they are, not expecting them to change, yet praying for the Holy Spirit to show them what God sees and desires. To put it as a question, “Why do we expect people outside the Church to act like the Church?” Maybe a bit more bluntly, “Why do we expect people outside the Church to live by the law of God — when we don’t even do it — before giving them the pure unadulterated gospel of Christ?
5) Starting at 1:25 – This is probably the stickiest part of the whole argument for Christians. It actually contains the both parts of the soundbite that has come to define Christianity: one, it should have no say in the public realm; two, it only speaks of “love.” I’ll get to the second part later. As for the first part, I must be abundantly clear. I am not suggesting the Church establish a theocracy. There are numerous aspects of the public realm that remain gray, even for Christians. For example, should the government run healthcare? Faithful Christians can come down on both sides. However, there are some aspects in the public realm that are not gray. In fact, the Church is even called to insist on God’s order of things. For example, the state should protect it’s citizens. (Note: Though the answer to the question, “How?” is another gray area, the fact that countries provide safety for their citizens remains absolute). Therefore, I fundamentally disagree with the Prime Minister, when he says that the Church has no business telling two people of the same gender they cannot get married. More than that, I disagree with the Prime Minister, who implicitly suggests the state need not listen to the Church on this matter. The Church is simply insisting that God created the world in a particular way. When we ignore this order, we do so to our own peril.
6) Starting at 2:00 – I feel bad for this pastor. He seems to live as many Christians live in this world. He assumes that people will recognize God’s will/law when they hear it. The sad truth is that the Fall has handicapped all people, even Christians, from recognizing God’s will. Again, taking sin seriously could have helped him tremendously here. As a quick comment, notice the smirk on the man’s face behind the pastor and the accompanying low murmur as the pastor brings up Jesus. This should simply remind us that Christendom is dying. We can no longer expect the words of Jesus or the Bible to hold the same authority in our culture and world as they once did.
7) Starting at 2:35 – The Bible does not say slavery is a natural condition. Instead, it takes it as a reality of the world and tells people how to live within such a condition. I actually agree with the Prime Minister, when he says social conditions change. Clearly, in the western world, slavery is no longer a social condition. Therefore, we rightly look upon it as abhorrent. Sadly, not everyone in the past, present, or future world knows this. In Ephesians 5, Paul tells Christians how they ought to live within this social condition. If you want to see what Paul thinks of Christian slave owners, read Philemon. Most people who make this argument have never done so. (For a much better and somewhat technical look at this particular argument, click here.)
8) Starting at 3:05 – The coup de grâce of the Prime Minster’s argument is here. In a soundbite, he declares the centrality of the gospel as universal love, which put into the form of a command expresses itself as “love your fellow man.” The Church actually has a name for this soundbite theology. It’s called gospel reductionism. This means two things. One, the gospel has been reduced to a single quality: love. Sadly, it isn’t even reduced to the love of Jesus Christ as the sacrifice for all sinners. Instead, it’s reduced to a vague and subjectively defined love. In other words, instead of being specific in a time and place, the love of gospel reductionism is general and redefined based on “human and social conditions.” Two, the gospel is the only thing that matters in Scripture. So, you can throw out Adam and Eve, since it doesn’t really speak of the gospel (or so they say). You can remove any notion of sin, since it’s uncomfortable to talk about anyway. You can also throw out the goal of holiness, because if we truly “love” one another, then we’ll let people do whatever they want. As long as you keep the “gospel” of universal “love,” all else is fair game for dismissal.
To put these two points together: not only is the gospel reduced to a soundbite of subjective universal love, but the entirety of Scripture is reduced to the soundbite of this “love.” The truth of the matter is that everything in the Bible, in time itself, flows to and from the cross, which is the true expression of love. There we find that we are sinners in need of salvation; a salvation we cannot achieve. There we find God made man dying in an act of sacrificial love unlike anything we had seen before and have seen since. There we find the true meaning of love: God did not want us to live a life headed for separation from him, so He sent His Son to pay the debt we owe in order that we may live with him eternally. That’s the love of the gospel. And this gospel, the true gospel, does not reduce Scripture. It expands it. It shows us that the rest of the Bible cannot be ignored. It shows us that the law of God is not some arbitrary or unfair list of rules, but is really the will of God, the way He created us and everything around us to operate. It shows us that holiness is ours through Christ and we ought to live like it.
With all this in mind, I encourage you to resist the temptation to believe the soundbite.
“Did you hear what the pope said?” is probably a question you have already heard or will hear sometime in the future. “Apparently, you don’t need to believe in God in order to go to heaven. You simply need to follow your conscience and do good. Don’t believe me? It’s in papers like this one and this one.” If you have heard words like these, it’s probably from someone antagonistic, apathetic, or curious about the Church and/or pope. Why? Because anyone within the Church will think about that statement for just a little bit and conclude the “summary” is wrong.
This is where I am confused. Why would anyone think that the pope, who is elected to serve the Church as if he were Christ himself (that’s what “vicar of Christ” means), could/would/should say, “You know that Jesus fellow? Well, he’s not all that important. You just need to follow your conscience. Go ahead and believe what you want, but be true to it and you’ll be fine!” Stop and think about how ridiculous it is to think or even expect such words. You don’t even really need to know what Pope Francis really said to make such a conclusion.
Just for fun, what did Pope Francis actually say? It might be interesting to know that you must deliberately search for the translation. All of the English papers reporting on the letter Pope Francis wrote to a newspaper columnist remain void of a link or reference to it. They simply have quotes that they want you to trust are authentic and not taken out of context. (To be fair, one article I found had a link to the Italian letter.) Fortunately, a translation does exist and can be found here. If you take the time to read it, you’ll notice at least the two things I noticed. First, Pope Francis talks about Jesus, faith, and the Church a whole lot. Seems strange for someone who supposedly said they don’t matter anymore. Second, the paragraph getting play in the media is the second to last paragraph in a nineteen paragraph long reply.
Finally, what did he mean? I could write my thoughts, but I thought the words of a Catholic would be better:
Okay, so I’m starting to get a bit frustrated about having to do this every other week. Here’s yet another of my “what the Pope really said” posts.
The mainstream media is going wild about a letter that Francis has written about atheists and agnostics, in which he appears to say that belief in God isn’t a requirement to get into Heaven. Of course, it absolutely is. If you arrive at the pearly gates and still refuse to accept that God exists then the odds are that St Peter won’t let you in. Everyone has to confront that reality at some point in their lives – so only the mad and the stubborn are likely to spend an eternity as unbelievers.
But putting that simple point aside, here’s the controversial bit of the Pope’s remarks:
“The question for those who do not believe in God is to follow their own conscience. Sin, even for a non-believer, is when one goes against one’s conscience. To listen and to follow your conscience means that you understand the difference between good and evil.”
He added that, “the mercy of God has no limits.”
We Catholics believe that nobody should be compelled to share our faith, hence atheists are at liberty to “follow their own conscience.” But we also believe that “conscience” is not a relativist thing that varies from individual to individual. The conscience is the seed of truth implanted in us by God when we are born and anyone who listens to it opens themselves up to the possibility of doing good and – eventually – to finding God. When we see someone in pain, our conscience tells us to help them. That is the “good” in us. If we feel nothing and do nothing for them, that is the “evil” in us. Ergo, the Pope is entirely right to advise atheists to follow their conscience, because that is the path to enlightenment.
What if someone’s conscience tells them that God doesn’t exist and the Pope is a silly man in white peddling antiquated nonsense? Well, we would say that a truly tested conscience will always conclude that the Church offers salvation. But if an individual continues to assert the opposite then they are best advised to be honest about their feelings. One of the greatest sins in the world is to participate in the Church and not really believe in its teachings. That’s a sure way to get to Hell.
Finally, the phrase “the mercy of God has no limits” is important. In the same way that Catholics have faith that the Almighty will forgive them of their sins, so we have faith that he will do the same for others. Maybe he will, maybe he won’t – we don’t know what he’s thinking so we don’t try to second guess him. Believing that the Church offers the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, we do our best to be good Catholics. We often fail.
Is all of the above really so hard to grasp? I’m getting tired of the media’s constant reinterpretation of the Pope’s words, usually with the spin that he’s “liberalizing” the Church. They used to do something similar to Benedict, although in his case they said that he was turning back the clock and was one encyclical away from burning a witch. But maybe the problem isn’t helped by Francis’s constant, hyper-energetic desire to speak to anyone and everyone about everything. For his own good, and the good of all his Church, the Pope needs to let his pen rest for a few days.
Twelve years ago, the World Trade Center towers came tumbling down, part of the Pentagon was destroyed, and a plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. It was the first time anything like this was captured on camera. All of America, indeed the entire world, witnessed the events of that day. They were truly horrific.
This anniversary of that horrific day reminds us of all we still need to do. We still need to care for those who lost loved ones that day. We still need to remember those who went into certain death to save others. We still need to encourage our policemen, firemen, armed servicemen, and more for all they do for us. All of these are probably obvious. One is not so obvious: We still need to pray for our enemies.
Today, while you remember 9/11 and go about your daily life, take time to pray for our enemies. Here’s one you can pray:
“O almighty, everlasting God, through Your only Son, our blessed Lord, You have commanded us to love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us, and to pray for those who persecute us. We therefore earnestly implore You that by Your gracious visitation all our enemies may be led to true repentance and may have the same love and be of one accord and one mind and heart with us and with Your whole Christian Church; through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.”
It occurred to me today that much of the backlash from Miley Cyrus’ performance comes from shock.
Frankly, I’m confused about the numerous expressions of surprise and the general milieu of shock on the internet, around the water cooler, and at PTA meetings. Here are a few reasons why:
It happened on MTV.
You know, that network that has brought us fine programming for many many years. There’s “The Real World,” which catalogs how college aged men and women behave when they are on a pseudo-Spring Break. There’s “Celebrity Death Match,” which explores the many ways claymation celebrities can die by explosion, smashing, dismemberment, and more. There’s “The Osbournes,” which glorified and idolized a celebrity family that is less than admirable. There’s “Jersey Shore,” which celebrates a culture that is vain and shallow to say the least. And let’s not forget classy shows like, “16 and Pregnant,” “Teen Mom,” “Skins.”
It happened on the VMAs.
You know, that “award show” that has featured many important and impressive cultural moments over thirty years. There’s Madonna’s performance of “Like a Virgin,” where she dressed as a bride and rolled around the ground suggestively throughout the song. There’s Britney Spears’ performances, where she ripped off her clothing to reveal skin colored underwear and where she kissed Madonna on stage. There’s Kanye West’s narcissistic rant, where he stole the microphone from Taylor Swift in order to spout off something irrelevant and meaningless in the grand scheme of things. And let’s not forget the numerous fights and drama that happens behind the scenes constantly.
It happened during a medley of awful music.
I’m not talking about the quality of music, but the content of its lyrics. For as much as people are upset by the performance, there’s not much shock about the lyrics. I won’t provide my comments on them. Instead, I’ll simply quote some of the lyrics for your consideration:
We Can’t Stop by Miley Cyrus
Red cups and sweaty bodies everywhere
Hands in the air like we don’t care
‘Cause we came to have so much fun now
Bet somebody here might get some now
It’s our party we can do what we want
It’s our party we can say what we want
It’s our party we can love who we want
We can kiss who we want
We can sing what we want
Blurred Lines by Robert Thickle feat. T.I. & Pharrell Williams
OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you
But you’re an animal, baby it’s in your nature
Just let me liberate you
Hey, hey, hey
You don’t need no papers
Hey, hey, hey
That man is not your maker
Hey, hey, hey
And that’s why I’m gon’ take a good girl
I know you want it
I know you want it
I know you want it
Give it 2 U by Robert Thickle feat. Kendrick Lamar
I got a gift for yah
I got this for yah,
A little Thicke for yah
A big kiss for yah,
I got a hit for yah
Big d**k for yah,
Let me give it to yah
Baby, baby
I gotta call for yah
I’ve got a whip for you
Black car for yah
Ball hard for you
I know you want to get fancy
I know you want to start dancing
These are just a few of the reasons I’m confused about the whole reaction to Miley Cyrus’ performance at the VMAs. However, to be fair, I understand that parents want role models for their children and young celebrities often provide for an effective and helpful role model for children to mimic. Though we have seen our fair share of fallen role models (Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Amanda Bynes, etc.), I can certainly sympathize with parents who still crave one for their little children, especially all the daughters out there.
But, here’s where this blog post is not ordinary. I am not issuing a call to the Miley Cyrus’ of this world to get their act together. Neither will I suggest that they have a responsibility greater than themselves and they need to live up to it. Instead, I want to tell all the parents out there that you’re role model enough for your children.
Fathers: your sons should and do look up to you to know how to behave like a man. They strive to mimic all that you do. When they’re older, the influence you had on your sons will be much more substantial than any pop icon, teacher, or other family member. It will help them when the culture demands they become sex-craved, testosterone-induced creatures. It will show them they can be respectable men. As for your daughters, you are their model for respectable behavior. They will remember how you treat their mother. They will seek to find a husband who mirrors your behavior, whether they know it or not. They will learn what to do when one of those sex-craved, testosterone-induced creatures knock at their door. They learn from you what it means to be women of honor.
Mothers: your daughters should and do look up to you to know how to act like a lady. They strive to mimic all that you do. When they’re older, the influence you had on your daughters will be much more substantial than any pop icon, teacher, or other family member. It will help them when the culture demands they become sex-craved, attention-seeking creatures. It will show them they can be loving and honorable women. As for your sons, you are their model for love and honor. They will remember how you treat their father. They will seek to find a wife who mirrors your behavior, whether they know it or not. They will learn what to do when one of those sex-craved, attention-seeking creatures pursue them. They will learn from you what it means to be men of respect.
So, here’s the bottom line: don’t look for role models in culture. They will all fail you and, in the end, will not have the influence you think they will. After all, children are even more fickle than we are. Be the role models for your children.
It occurred to me today that I’m thankful for Marshall McLuhan.
I thought of this when my little girl discovered the television for the first time this week. Of course, this was not unforeseen though it did happen much earlier than I expected. As my wife and I awaited her discovery, we constantly discussed the impact television has on us. Integral to our conversations is McLuhan’s theory. More precisely, we depend on Neil Postman’s work, which utilizes McLuhan. For those who don’t know, McLuhan is famous for arguing that the way we receive a message is as important as, if not more important than, the message itself. He coined the saying, “the medium is the message.”
Postman argues that the television medium does only one thing: entertain. Therefore, when you watch television, no matter what type of program, you are being entertained. This explains a bunch! It explains why “the news” no longer informs us about the world. It explains why the seriousness of the courtroom no longer exists. It explains why we can’t seem to turn it off. Concerning this post, it also explains why even babies are drawn to it. It stimulates us unlike anything else to offer nearly endless entertainment. More importantly, television dominates the way we think about entertainment.
I’m thankful for McLuhan and Postman, because now we can be deliberate about introducing television to our daughter. If we introduce it too early, then she will want to be entertained by it. Not only that, but she’ll also learn that television is the only desirable form of entertainment and, thus, the only way to be truly entertained. Unfortunately, this means she’ll have a hard time appreciating other forms of entertainment like reading, talking, or traveling. If we wait to introduce television viewing, then she may enjoy quiet times in the house. She might get some quality time with her pets. She might appreciate long drives. She might love listening to the air blowing through the house. Whatever she learns to appreciate, our hope is that she’ll love time away from the screen more than we do. Who knows, maybe we’ll start to learn to appreciate that time too.
It occurred to me today that I like to engage in the world of thoughts.
By that, I mean that I like to engage thoughts more than people, ideas more than materials, and the abstract more than the concrete. Naturally, I work on this natural proclivity whenever possible. I hope to make my abstract thoughts more concrete, engage people and their thoughts, and work with my hands as much as I work with my brain. However, when push comes to shove, I consistently return to thoughts and opinions.
C.S. Lewis said something in Mere Christianity that jostled me a little bit: “The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.”
Of course the pleasures he speaks of here are ones I’m particularly keen on pursuing. Yet, in Mere Christianity, Lewis reminds me of the dangers of these pleasures, not the least of which he implies at the end. Namely, as a future pastor, I could be that self-righteous prig. So, I need to remember that I need just as much grace and power for my diabolical self as I do my animal self.
As a final note (and hopefully one that does not appear as if I’m satisfying the diabolical self), I cannot help but think how easy it is to court the diabolical self on Facebook and blogs. In fact, it often seems the computer is an easy way to deceive ourselves into making diabolical pleasures righteous. Food for thought, I guess.
It occurred to me today that zombies are way under appreciated.
For many of you reading this, such a statement probably seems odd if not wrong. You may ask, “Aren’t we supersaturated with zombies in our media?” Truly, wherever we turn, it seems we see more and more zombies. Movies, television shows, games, and even tablet apps constantly return to them as a way to earn millions and millions of dollars. Yet, with all the exposure, zombies are really nothing more than another one of the interchangeable horror monsters. To say it differently, zombies have yet to fully realize their potential. Sadly, whenever their potential is explored just a bit, it falls through pretty quickly.
World War Z is a perfect example. The book was a wonderful exploration and critique of the American political and sociological atmosphere and the issues Americans are facing or could be facing in the future. The movie was turned into another action-horror film, where the main character tried to hunt down the cure. Resident Evil is another great example. What began as a game about corporate corruption ended in a stock shooter game with the pretense of its former self. Many good writers use zombies as a way to add urgency to an otherwise dire situation or for exploration of moral dilemmas and meta-questions. But, most artifacts diverge from these creative measures towards making zombies the main attraction. Thus, most of what we see is sloppy or unimaginative.
Fortunately, not everything out there follows this unfortunate turn of events. Thus far, The Walking Dead franchise has resisted this direction. It creatively and tactfully interweaves zombie violence, drama, and morality as it tells its story. More importantly, it grapples with questions of life and death, personhood, and community. Of particular interest is the game recently released for consoles and tablets by the same name. Instead of implying these things as you watch a television show, it forces you to ask these questions as you put yourself in the shoes of a zombie apocalypse survivor. It realizes the potential of the zombie concept.
Too bad there’s not much like The Walking Dead out there. Until there is, I’m afraid zombies are missing their potential.
It occurred to me today that it has been almost 24 months since I’ve watched “the news.”
Don’t misunderstand me. I inform myself about the days events through websites, newspaper articles and magazines, and even Facebook. In other words, I read the news. But, the television doesn’t give news. It gives entertainment. “The news” is simply another form of that entertainment. Think about it. “The news” hits every genre possible. You get suspense as you watch a police chase or wait for new “breaking news.” There’s comedy when a guest stumps or startles the host. Not to mention when partisan agendas and questions are sworn to be unbiased. Of course, there’s terror when they tell you everything in your household, workplace, and everywhere in between will kill you. There’s mystery as you watch people try to get to the bottom of some crisis, controversy, or conflict. You may even get to “help.” And, there’s romance as they tell of celebrity couples, royal romances, and sloppy split-ups. Whatever you get, it’s not news.
Naturally, many people think “the news” is news, including (and perhaps most especially) the newscasters, pundits, and executives of these programs. Yet, this is precisely the problem and it’s why I brag about not watching “the news.” I will probably make further posts about this in the future. But, for now, I want to show that I’m not a lunatic. There are others who suggest that “the news” is not what it appears or tries to be. First on my list is Neil Postman, whom I suggested anyone reading this blog consider exploring. Another important argument to consider is the one made by Jon Stewart. He’s given two incredible interviews that I will let speak for themselves. Below is the first part of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s four-part interview and the interview with CNN’s Larry King. However, the most important is the first video of Stewart’s appearance on Crossfire. Please be warned that there is some language in the first.
It occurred to me again today that the world really doesn’t get it.
I was listening to a local radio show host talk about Don Lemon’s comments about the race debate surrounding the Zimmerman trial. On his segment No Talking Points, Mr. Lemon gave five points for the African American community to consider if they want to improve their community. One of the points (note: not the main one) was to eliminate the stigma on education so that its pursuit becomes noble once again. Of course, my local radio show host and many others have highlighted this point as a silver bullet. The argument goes that as long as people get an education, everything else will fall into place. But, they don’t get it. Mr. Lemon got it:
In the video above, Mr. Lemon puts the restoration of the family as his main point. Showing a statistic that 72% of African American babies are born to unwed mothers, he says, “Just because you can have a baby, doesn’t mean you should, especially without planning for one or getting married first.” Wow! How much more amazingly pithy and honest can you get? Of course, Mr. Lemon received considerable backlash for this segment. Sadly, the world doesn’t get it. (Edit: There are now murmurs that naysayers are starting to listen a bit closer to what Mr. Lemon said.)
I loved Don Lemon’s comments. But, I would like to add two things. First (I would never expect him to make this confirmation considering the context in which he spoke), Mr. Lemon’s comments can be universalized. That is to say, the five points to restore the African American community can, at one level or another, apply for any other community. Second and much more important, babies should come from marriages. It’s not enough to simply plan for a baby. Children need a stable household with a loving husband and wife to care for them. There needs to be more than just two people bound to a “biological result of their love.” Society needs husbands and wives dedicated to one another for life and all it brings them, including those “biological results.” Put more boldly, without husbands and wives functioning together to raise their children, individual cultures and even entire societies suffer. I can even be so bold to suggest that if the spirit behind Mr. Lemon’s comments are not universalized and subsumed by society, then erosion of the family and decline of the community we have witnessed in the African community will happen across America. Maybe that’s why the fourth commandment is the chief commandment for our life with our neighbor?
Thought of the Day 