What's the difference?

In the song “Where were you,” Alan Jackson wrote,
I'm just a singer of simple songs
I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you
The difference in Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
Faith, Hope and Love are some good things He gave us
And the greatest is Love.
Written in 2001, this song illustrates a “September 10” mindset about the Middle East. These days, one would assume that most people do understand the difference between Iraq and Iran. We have troops in Iraq. We don’t have troops in Iran. Yet. Over the weekend, Iran seized 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters, sparking additional tension in the Persian Gulf region. Presidential candidate John McCain believes that Britain needs to take decisive action. Iran has already defied all diplomatic efforts to get that rogue nation to cease development of uranium enrichment, a necessary precondition of building nuclear weapons. And, of course, the professional peace activist crowd presumes that President Bush is the one itching for yet another war, even though it is clear that Iran is already supplying weapons to the “insurgents” (terrorists) in Iraq.

Iran has a long history of being a thorn in the United States’ side. President Reagan was inaugurated in 1981 on the very day that the year-long Iranian hostage crisis ended. Most Americans who lived through it have a very long memory of the humiliation we endured at the hands of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Iran and Iraq fought an eight-year war, during which it was difficult for the US to take sides, especially with Saddam Hussein in charge in Iraq. And the same sectarian issues that have been going on for centuries are still a major source of trouble both in Iraq and in Iran today.

Iran is a Shiite nation. 65% of Iraq is Shiite. The rest is Sunni, with a small smattering of Nestorian and Catholic Christians included. Most of the Arab world is Sunni. During Saddam Hussein’s rule, Shiites were routinely persecuted, tortured, maimed and killed, in order to safeguard Saddam’s reign of terror. Now that the Shiites have a majority in the new Iraqi parliament, it is feared that they will attempt to use their position of power to oppress the Sunni minority. Whenever people talk about a “civil war” in Iraq, it is less to do with geography and more to do with religion.

So now to paraphrase Alan Jackson’s hit song, are you sure you can tell the difference in Iraq and Iran? Do you know the difference between the Shia and the Sunni? One group (Sunni) believed the true successors to Muhammad were the caliphs, chosen from the prophet’s close associates; the other (Shi’a) believe that Muhammad’s son-in-law was the rightful leader of Islam. Is this a classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill, or is it really serious enough to threaten the peace and security of a region, if not the entire world?

In a sense, this may be a classic case of a difference in political philosophy. The Sunni method of choosing the prophet’s successor seems to be more democratic than the hereditary monarchy form favored by the Shi’a. Is that why there are at least some secular republics and democracies among Sunni Muslims, and why the Shi’a are the great opponents to democracy in the post-Saddam Iraq? We may be tempted to shake our heads in disbelief that such a petty issue could be worth going to war over, but consider this: the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, both Christian, not only split over the issue of primacy (is the pope or the patriarch of Constantinople the head of the Christian church, and the basis for their respective claims), but declared the other to be excommunicated and condemned to hell. Catholics and Protestants fought religious wars for two centuries before the relatively modern idea of “tolerance” appeared to be more rational than a “convert to my religion or die” approach. Would Hindus say that the difference between Jews and Christians are as insignificant as those between Sunni and Shia, since we both hold to the same commandments, worship the same God, only Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and Jews are awaiting the Messiah to come?

Or do we ever catch ourselves labeling one type of Christian group, belief, or practice as being “ not really Christian?” Rumor has it that our music teacher set off quite a debate in choir class by strongly asserting that “Christian Screamo” is a contradiction in terms, and that there is nothing Christian about something you can’t understand. When are we right to reject something as contrary to Scripture (and therefore sinful) and when are we wrong to label something as sinful that is actually a matter of Christian freedom? For example, some people are downright defiant in their insistence that Jesus doesn’t care if you wear jeans to church, but would freak out if they saw their clergyman wearing a gown and vestments.

By the way, the connection between the first part of the blog and the last part is that, to an outsider, the rabid hatred and violence between Shia and Sunni is incomprehensible. Is the same true about the issues that divide followers of Christ?

300

This weekend, the action film "300" set a record for the biggest March opening ever, and was slightly behind the openings of "Matrix: Reloaded" and "The Passion of the Christ" as the third-ranked opening of an "R" rated movie ever.

My wife and I went to see "300" this Saturday at the Adrian cinema. The place was packed, not an empty seat anywhere. As a depiction of a historical event, I have a mixed review of the movie. I could have wished for a little more development of the background--we come to learn very little of the Persians except that Xerxes is some kind of androgynous monster and that the army is made up of slaves and beasts from all over the world. We don't really get an idea of the importance of the battle of Thermopylae being the Spartan sacrifice that served to unite the Greek city-states against the common enemy--Persia. But we get a real sense of the Spartan training and attitude, and certainly the unwillingness to yield to a conqueror and to die fighting for freedom is as inspirational as "Braveheart." In the context of the global war on terror, the defenders of democratic ideals ought to be celebrated as heroic, and those who favor surrender and appeasement ought to be viewed as traitorous.

It's hard for me to recommend my students to go and see it, though. It's very violent, much more so than "Gladiator" or "Troy." There is nudity. The slow-motion camera work began to weary me after a while. But I'd enjoy hearing the comments of anyone who saw the film, whether you liked it or not, or how well the battle of Thermopylae was recreated on the big screen.

Clinton fires a teacher

Perhaps you've heard of the recent case of Clinton High School teacher Steve Walters, who was recently fired from his teaching position because he refused to wear an ID badge. As a security measure, the school several months ago began to require this visible badge to be displayed by all students and employees. It appears that Mr. Walters thought this rule was stupid, wouldn't really make the students more secure, and would be a disruption to his class because the kids would be so anxious about intruders that they couldn't concentrate on English.

It really takes a lot to fire a public school teacher, especially one with tenure (at least three years in their current position). The unions protect even the most lazy, indifferent, or incompetent. But they were unable to prevent the school board of Clinton from giving Mr. Walters his pink slip. Apparently they found another reason for which even a tenured teacher can be fired (besides hitting or having sex with a student). Mr. Walters was guilty of insubordination.

In a school, people are expected to follow the rules. Some of the rules may seem "stupid." But there are reasons for all of them, whether we know what the reasons are or not. Mr. Walters has been a proficient and popular teacher. Many of his current and past students have testified on his behalf and are proud of the stance he is taking. He is continuing to teach by example. But what is he teaching?

When you get a job, and the employer expects you to wear a uniform while on the job, it's not going to matter if you think the name badge is "stupid" or "gay." If you had a teacher that encouraged you to "speak truth to power" and "stand up to the man" because he was an aging hippie and that's the way they did it in the groovy 60's, man, then maybe you'll do something stupid like disobey your employer's rules.

That doesn't mean that rules and laws, even the supreme law of the land (US Constitution) can't be changed. But we need to obey laws that are not in violation of God's Word even as we work within the system to bring about change.

Soulforce is on the move

Over the weekend I received a letter from the president of the college where my son Ezekiel is a sophomore, notifying all parents of the impending "visit" to Wisconsin Lutheran College of a busload of gay, lesbian, transgender, and straight-ally students on March 12-13. According to Soulforce's web site, they intend to visit college campuses that are the "darkest" in their homophobia in order to challenge their "misinterpretations of Scripture." One bus is heading west and has already caused disruption at Notre Dame, forcing the administration there to call the police and arrest trespassers. From South Bend they are traveling to Wisconsin Lutheran College, so I am hoping that Zeke will give us an eyewitness account of the goings-on in Milwaukee on Monday and Tuesday.

Wisconsin Lutheran's president, Dr. Tim Kriewall, wrote:

On March 12 and 13, a group called Soulforce plans to visit WLC to attempt to promote their gay rights agenda. Although the college respectfully declined their visit, we have received confirmation from their representatives that we will be the second stop on their western bus tour of college campuses.

The President's cabinet discussed the issue at length with campus pastor Nathan Strobel, the Religious Studies department, and our district president for the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the church body with which we are affiliated. After much prayerful consideration, the decision was made to decline their request to visit campus. Just as we would not enter into a perceived "debate of public opinion" with another religious body on issues to which we believe Scripture clearly speaks (although we would always be ready to witness what we believe), we are not interested in entering into a dialogue on this religious matter with Soulforce representatives.

We have made it clear that we will not allow any disruption of classes or regular student body activity. We have asked that they restrict themselves to public property off campus, though it is possible that they will come on to campus anyway. We have agreed amongst ourselves to let them wander the outdoor areas of campus, but in an effort not to disrupt school activities, we will not let them enter buildings. To this end, on March 12 and 13, access to all campus buildings will be only with the campus ID card. We will have security personnel inside all doors as an added precaution.

In hopes that they could be somewhat mollified, we have agreed to organize a meeting at a neutral site between members of their group and representatives of our student body, staff, faculty, and administration. We do not expect to win any arguments, but will use the opportunity to witness just the same.

We have held several Bible studies on campus for students and staff to communicate and clarify where the Bible stands on the issue of homosexuality. We have also counseled students to treat the Soulforce group with respect and Christian love, even though we do not agree with them.

Of utmost concern is the safety of our students and that these two days do not disrupt the education we have a contract to provide. Finally, please remember our student body, faculty, staff, administration and the Soulforce group in your prayers as we prepare for this visit. We know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love him.

When I was visiting college campuses with Zeke during his senior year, we encountered many secular campuses and theatre programs that were populated with members of the "gay, lesbian, and transgendered community." At Western Michigan, Zeke's dance audition was led by a "Gay black Frenchman." At Oakland University, the theatre department was proud to produce "The Laramie Project." Although Zeke realizes that, as he pursues his dream of a career in the theatre, he will invariably need to work with gay men, he chose to attend a Christian college of our denomination where the theatre professors support the Biblical teaching regarding sexuality, namely, that all sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. Since God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, it therefore follows that all homosexual activity is condemned by God as sinful and contrary to his holy will for his gift of sex.

The more that Soulforce and other groups like them put pressure on Christian colleges like Wisconsin Lutheran, the more that the media paints Spring Arbor's dismissal of a "transgendered" professor as an example of bigotry and intolerance, the more pressure there will be to conform to the worldview that "God made me this way." I'm providing a link to Focus on the Family's story about Soulforce. On that page are a number of links to resources that are useful for a Christian in giving clear testimony about God's will regarding human sexuality. Check them out, bookmark the resource pages, and file them for your future reference. The day you find yourselves on campus exchanging dialog with Soulforce or other activist groups is not far away.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that describes the Soulforce event. Sounds relatively uneventful and disappointing from the gay perspective.

UPDATE 2: Here is the news release from Soulforce itself. It seems as though they are disappointed that the school's administration would not "dialogue" with them on their issues, but were happy that some students went to "talk" with them. They seem proud of getting arrested, too.

Women's history month

Last month we had an opportunity to explore some biographies of important African-Americans during February's observation of Black History Month. As the calendar turns to March, we now note the official designation of this month in honor of Women's History.

I'm reminded of the sentiments of Frederick Douglass, a notable speaker and advocate of the abolition of slavery. Mr. Douglass, an African-American, apparently believed in women's suffrage, but insisted that the newly freed black men should receive the right to vote first. So Black history month must be observed before Women's history month!

When you explored the biographies of African-American icons, did you notice that the vast majority of the black men and women were either athletes or entertainers? For all the talk about Crispus Attucks and his "contribution" to the fight for American independence, most of the African-Americans you wrote about were famous for what? Serving us by entertaining us. Other blacks made the list because of their contribution to the cause of civil rights (Martin Luther King Jr., Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X). In other words, there was something self-advancing in their cause, with the improvement of American society an interesting side effect but not really an original objective.

Are the heroines of women's history month similarly famous? Are the members of the feminist pantheon those who contributed to life with scientific discovery, medical advancement, research and invention, or are they all simply women who fought for women's right to vote? When we look at women in history, will we be limited to the flag-sewing capabilities of Betsy Ross and the "empire is a fine burial cloth" encouragement of empress Theodora? What will an exploration of women's history month look like?

I'd like to you take a look at the women's hall of fame on the history channel web site. Read the text on the home page. Here's an excerpt:

In the early nineteenth century, women were considered second-class citizens whose existence was limited to the inferior life of the home and care of the children. Women were considered sub-sets of their husbands, and after marriage they did not have the right to own property, maintain their wages, or sign a contract, much less vote. It was expected that women be obedient wives, never to hold a thought or opinion independent of their husbands. It was considered improper for women to travel alone or to speak in public.

With the belief that intense physical or intellectual activity would be injurious to the delicate female biology and reproductive system, women were taught to refrain from pursuing any serious education. Silently perched in their birdcages, women were considered merely objects of beauty, and were looked upon as intellectually and physically inferior to men. This belief in women's inferiority to men was further reinforced by organized religion which preached strict and well-defined sex roles.

Hmm..life in the home and care of children were "inferior." This belief in women's inferiority was "reinforced by organized religion." Wonder if there's a bias there against, say, Christian home-schooling mothers?

At any rate, follow the link on the left to the "Hall of Fame," and, just as you did for Black History Month, select one of the noteworthy women and prepare a brief summary of her life and accomplishments. PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT WHAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS ALREADY DONE! And, in case you were wondering, former Spring Arbor professor Julie (or is it John?) Nemecek does not count as a famous woman.