Inspired by a True Story

The End

This is the last post I'll be making at Inspired By a True Story.  I will now be blogging at Available Light. There's more than a week's worth of fresh posts already there, so come on over.

The Purposeless University

In a society which has jettisoned its religious heritage along with any framework for transcendent meaning, any sense of purpose must arise from the self. In place of imperatives to obey the will of God, we have only our own aspirations to carry us through. The oft-repeated secular commandment to follow your dreams is this generation's cry of despair.

The meaninglessness is everywhere. You can see it at every level of education as well as in every segment of the population.

I thought this video did a great job capturing the malaise and confusion of many of today's university students.

Rudy and the Republican Loss of Soul

Great column this morning from Pat Buchanan describing the crumbling of the conservative monolith.

Buchanan nails exactly what a Giuliani presidency would mean.

He writes:

A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.

Rudy offers the right the ultimate Faustian bargain: retention of power at the price of one's soul.

Exactly.

A Giuliani victory, even if it kept Hilary out of the White House, would really be a loss for those of us who see the issues where he is most liberal as the most basic to preserving this culture. We would be destroying the foundation for the sake of the house.

Rudy's Confusion

Political conservatives continue to pressure evangelicals to support the probable presidential nomination of Rudolph Giuliani. The stumbling block, of course, is that Giuliani, like his Democrat opponents, is a pro-abort.

The argument in support of Giuliani is essentially that though he is a pro-abort, he isn't as big a pro-abort as Hilary. He will appoint judges who will help overturn Roe v. Wade, they say. He wants to reduce the number of abortions and will work toward that end, they say.

I don't believe it. I don't trust Giuliani on this because his position is inherently contradictory, which makes him seem like he's pandering to pro-life voters to get elected.

What I need to know from him is whether abortion kills a human being. If it does, then why does he support the murder of those human beings in any circumstances?  If he believes abortion is murder but thinks the murder of a certain class of human beings, the unborn, is acceptable, then I don't want him to be president.

On the other hand, if he does not think abortion kills an innocent child, then why does he go around saying he wants to make it more rare? If no one is hurt in an abortion, why should the number of them be reduced? If abortion only involves removing a lump of tissue from a woman's body, then why make a political issue of it at all?

Giuliani's tactic here is to obfuscate the issue, to try to confuse rather than to clarify the issue. While I'm no fan of Hilary, at least she's not fudging on this issue. She's all for murdering babies and is happy to say
so. Rudy would do well to follow her example.

Rode to Ruin

I have been disappointed to see that WORLD magazine's new online presence features a series of first-person reports from a young woman who has enlisted in the fight to help spread the West's sexual confusion.

In her first report, Sara Rode, a 2006 King's College graduate, wrote:

I shocked my parents the day I graduated from The King’s College in 2006 by telling them that I would pursue becoming an officer in the Marines. My family was initially skeptical of my decision to join because I was a 5’3, 105 lb girl: not the typical Marine.

and

As a Christian woman and an American, however, I recognized the global war against terrorists as the great calling of my generation.

She couldn't be more wrong. The greatest calling of her generation is to live faithfully according to God's plan for the individual and the family and to accept that He has provided different roles to men and to women. As a woman planning to lead troops into combat, Rode is violating that divine plan.

Just as a husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church and lay his life down for her, men in general should carry the burden of defending women and children and the cherished artifacts of home.

It's a shame this young Christian woman has been duped into believing otherwise, and even a greater shame that WORLD magazine has chosen to lionize her foolishness.

No More "Good Old Golden Rule" Days

Education is an inherently moral business. There's no escaping value judgements when we enter into the job of deciding what young people ought to know and how to go about teaching them.

A society that has cut itself off from every religous and traditional source of morality in search of some new code more to its liking is bound to find its educational system mired in constant ethical confusion and unable to give kids any ultimate reason for obeying the rules adults lay down.

All that remains are appeals to bald power or to the kids' self-interest. No motives for obedience beyond the enrichment of the self or, possibly, escaping the power of the state to punish can be admitted to the conversation.

Two stories in the news today illustrate the chaos.

First, in Florida, a group of teenagers are suspended from school for wearing Goth-style make-up.

From the story:

Principal Jim Miller said the students "made a choice to leave. Students need to understand that this is not the mall; this is not a dance; this is not a concert. This is school. Their attire needs to be appropriate."

Notice the principal's appeal here is to what is "appropriate", not to what is "right". He knows he doesn't want the kids in school dressed this way, but is unable to articulate his reasons in any way that goes beyond appealing to mere social convention.

"Well," he seems to be saying, "that's not the way people usually dress when they come to school, so those kids shouldn't dress that way today." It's easy to see why that argument might not fly with his rebellious students.

Meanwhile, in Texas, a teacher faces possible criminal charges after including a book by Cormac McCarthy which, according to the story, is about  "a murderer who has sex with his victims' bodies."

The criminal charges represent the kind of visceral overreaction that is common in the absence of real moral reflection on the content of art and what is appropriate for the state to supply to young teenagers. The parents have a right to be upset, but one can only wonder what they expected when they surrendered their children to a system they knew to be morally and spiritually bankrupt.

Ellen and Her Little Lost Dog

It’s hard not to feel sorry for a crying woman. Still, when Ellen DeGeneres went on her popular talk show this week and broke down, her behavior was so manipulative it was hard to feel sympathy for her.

There was a dog involved. Apparently, Ellen and her girlfriend, actress Portia de Rossi, had adopted a puppy from a rescue agency. In doing so, de Rossi signed a paper saying that if the adoption didn’t work out, the animal would go back to the agency.

According to the Associated Press:

"DeGeneres adopted the dog, then gave it to her hairstylist's family after the dog, despite training, couldn't get along with the comedian's cats, her publicist has said.

Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun, owners of the nonprofit Mutts and Moms agency, claimed that DeGeneres violated the adoption agreement by not informing them that she was giving the dog away and removed Iggy from the hairstylist's home Sunday.”

DeGeneres has now gone so far as to cancel a taping of her show because she is so broken up over the incident.

Her behavior has been despicable. Since DeGeneres made her dispute with the agency public, the owners have received death threats.

This incident reveals the heart of our culture. In her televised plea, DeGeneres admits the agency acted according to its policy. She admits that she and De Rossi were aware of the policy. She admits she broke her word to return the dog if the adoption did not go smoothly. Nevertheless, she used her television show to create a drama in which she is cast as the victim.

All she wants, she says, is for the dog to be returned to her stylist’s two little girls who love it. Her exploitation of these little girls is gruesome. DeGeneres is suing their sadness to garner attention for herself and to increase her audience’s love for her. She knows they will see her as someone unable to hold back her emotions as she just tries to help the children.

And it is her audience that is of greatest concern because their reactions, ranging from starting “Free Iggy” petitions to issuing death threats, say so much about our culture. Once, this situation would have been handled differently. Ellen would have apologized for her mistake to the agency and to the family to whom she gave the dog. She would have asked the agency to allow the dog to stay with the family. If they refused, it would have been expected that the little girls would have been sad for a while, but eventually they would have been encouraged to put their hurt behind them and move on.

Not any more. Now, we consider tears, especially televised ones, a powerful argument. No matter how wrong DeGeneres’ behavior might have been, once she goes on television and cries about what’s happened, the audience, who did not think but only feel, will be really mad at the mean, mean people who would make their buddy Ellen so sad.

Principle and responsibility no longer matter. All that matters is that the audience gets what it wants: a chance to take a side in an unfolding drama, an opportunity to pat itself on the back for being the kind of people who hate whom they are told to hate, and above all good television in the afternoon.

Another Update

One reason my posting frequency has fallen off is that I am spending much of my available writing time trying to produce a series of essays, some of which, I hope, might turn into magazine articles or even a book.

The first one, about some of the practical dynamics of sin on our thinking, is coming along. If any good passages actually turn up, I'll post them here. Otherwise, I'll be posting from time to time when opportunity and inclination meet.

If any of you have read something here you think might make a good essay topic, or if you've seen something you think needs further development, let me know. Who knows, there could be an essay there just waiting to be written.

Worship in the Context of Abortion: A Clarification

My previous post about worship in the context of a culture of death generated quite a few responses. Unfortunately, a number of them seemed to miss the point to varying degrees. So, I wanted to toss up this post to help clarify.

Some people seemed to get caught up in the examples, rather than focusing on the more substantive point I was making. I’m not sure why that is. For example, Dean H. accuses me of making “the vast sweeping assumptions you have that churches with screens or churches with contemporary music or churches where people clap, etc. are not doing anything to help the culture, not helping babies, etc.”

It’s a charge of which I am innocent. Near the top of the post, I said, “Most evangelical services at churches of any size tend to run together, having been stripped of all their denominational and historical distinctives by trends at play in the larger evangelical movement.”

I fail to see how I am guilty of making a too sweeping generalization when, from the beginning, I made it clear that I am not talking about every evangelical church. I am talking about MOST churches, the bulk of churches, the majority of services. Most is not all. I don’t doubt those of you who wrote in to say that your church is an exception to the general trend. “Most” means 51 to 99 percent. By using that word to qualify my description, I left room for just such exceptions.

Now, that being said, it seems undeniable to me that there is a trend in the evangelical movement toward services that have “fun” as their distinguishing mark. The Christians behind them seem to want to draw people in with a promise of good times and an adrenaline rush.

The fact is that this mindset is always manifest in the presence of rock bands, big screens, and clever skits and sermons designed and delivered for maximum entertainment value. That doesn’t mean that this shallow thinking is behind EVERY contemporary service, but wherever this mindset exists, it gravitates toward a very contemporary way of doing church.

Some people questioned the abortion connection. One long-time friend wrote in to say, “the abortion TRAGEDY is in no way relevant to the praise and worship chorus, or the worship structure of the post-modern church.”

Here is the way I see it. Very few churches would have dared to have an upbeat, pleasure-oriented service on the evening of September 11, 2001. The events of the day were too dire. A service that failed to acknowledge those events and to respond to them with appropriate decorum would have been offensive.

What most of the church does not realize is that since legal abortion was forced on this country every day is September 11. We must remember the children who will be murdered during the hour we spend rocking out at church. When we stand and clap or laugh at the drama team’s clever skit, we should remember we stand ankle deep in their blood. We should act accordingly.

A Shocking Moment at the University of Florida

Via Drudge today comes the story of Andrew Meyer, a 21-year-old University of Florida student.

Meyer attended a town hall meeting with Senator John Kerry on campus Monday night.

Meyer asked Kerry several aggressive questions and apparently exceeded his alloted time. So, university police officers did what they always do when a student fails to observe proper protocol: they knocked him to the ground, pinned him, and, once he was on the ground with officers on top of him, shot him with a taser gun.

Watch the incident here.

And more here.

Based on some comments this kid makes in the second clip, I'd guess this kid is a left-wing conspiracy advocate. I probably disagree with him on every point. Nonetheless, I have to say this kind of treatment is outrageous.

What chilled me most about this video is the guy's futile screams for help as he is being mauled by these agents of the state. In the second clip, you can see a couple of young women who begin to scream at the officers to let him go. That's it. Otherwise, no-one even rises from his chair to protest these officers' heavy-handed tactics.

We can understand, of course, that the kids were scared. They don't want to be arrested. They don't want to tangle with a passel of cops who've already shown they are willing to use violence against unarmed teenagers.

But, students weren't the only ones in the rooms. Where were the college's administrators? These officers were employed by the university. Presumably, the university's administrators have authority over them. Why would they stand by while this was happening?

There was, of course, someone with even more power than a university official present. There was a United States Senator on the platform at the front of the auditorium. Kerry's failure to come down from the stage, march up the aisle to where the tussle was taking place, and demand, in front of the cameras, that this travesty be stopped, reveals his cowardice.

To be fair, Kerry can be heard in one of the videos saying he wants to answer the question, but his protestations are weak and ineffectual in light of what is happening in the aisle a few yards away.

Had Kerry taken more action, the officers still might have carried through with their abuse of this man. But those officers would have been much more moderate in their use of force, if only to avoid harming a U.S. Senator. Also, Kerry would have been on tape standing up against the forces of political oppression. He would have looked like a hero.

It is the nature of conspiracy theories that they cannot be disproven. To deny them is, in the minds of believers, to prove them. If this kid is a conspiracy theorist, if his heart and mind have been captured by dark tales of collusion among our governing officials, he should not be surprised by what happened to him. We can't control his mind, we can't keep him from believing the government is moving us into a police state or is out to get him personally. We should hope, however, that those with power would have enough sense not to act in ways that give him more ammunition for his paranoia.