Alone in the Dark, Part 2

In the blackened alley of his heart, he grew as is the custom and destiny of every man. The world changed little to him. The rain still fell, the sun hid, and the eyes of others always seemed to sink away from him, disengaged and uninterested, laying brick and mortar around an already stoney heart. To kill them would have been great pleasure. To torture them a delight of the senses. Yet to show them the pain he had born was a fantasy that could not come true, even in the deepest, darkest medieval dungeon with the screams held as silent prisoners by the thick stone walls with no windows and no salvation. Once a shunned child, now a broken and wrathful man, there was nothing he could inflict or afflict that would alleviate the agony of the vacancy so hollow in his heart and mind.

It was a rainy day, like any other. The humming mass of lemmings scurried to and fro with a hurried pace, dodging the downpour in the streets, but failing to quell the active loss of affection to which they clung every day. The hustle and bustle of business and life and even fleeting laughter came and went with the winds that they allowed to carry them about without asking to which end they were being pushed and pulled. Gray and black clouds grinned down upon them, and him, knowing that they were all subjects of the natural forces that held them in gloom and despair, even as they falsified and faked the forms of friendship and fellowship.

Suddenly the sadistic gleam of the clouds turned to distress. They clung tightly together, unwilling to let anything break their bonds, fighting so hard that the rain fell harder, faster, turning to hail then back to drops and back again and forth until there was nothing to hold them together. Their bonds were broken and a small split divided into an opening of blue and brilliant yellow that shone, not upon the masses who could still feel the bitter rain, but the boy-turned-man who felt the ice within him begin to melt, even as he fought the feelings he had dismissed so long ago. The sun's light was gentle and relentless, and when his squinting eyes could finally gaze, he saw her before him, beautiful and wise, glowing as an angel from heaven, with a smile and a gleam that called like a siren's song for his affections to emerge from their cave and into the light of day. The mortar melted, the rocks softened, and as his eyes lifted up to meet hers, a sense of peace and love came to know him for the first time in truth.

In her was a wondrous heart that loved him as no other had, dedicated and devoted, confident and sure, ever-affectionate and unfettered by anything but the bounds of love itself. Without a second thought, he took her extended hand and poured his heart upon her, surrendering himself without reservation or condition, never looking back or forward, simply enjoying every minute that she would indulge him with her presence. They walked the street with sun gleaming upon them, warming their hearts, blinding them to all but one another as true love often does. Even after the vows passed one from another, they found a passion that burned as an inferno that could not be tamed, contained, or diminished by the nay-sayers or enemies that would seek to tear them apart. Neither calamity nor conflict could oppose them, and it seemed as though joy had been found both unexpectedly and irreversibly, indivisible by the soulless eyes that looked upon them with envy masked as loathing and malice.

Yet what neither man nor circumstances could dampen, time patiently chipped away with the busy-ness of life, the stress of living, and the clouds returned, slow but sure. The inferno could not be quenched all at once, but a steady dose of dampener would methodically decrease the coals until the final flames flickered desperately, but helplessly in the downpour, leaving little but a few embers that occasionally glowed bright enough to warm a night or two, but kept the day cold and damp. The love that had been so holistic and true eroded, as all things do, until the passion, affection, and devotion vacated, leaving only a commitment, which was the one thing that neither storms nor time could take from them. Thus love was redefined and foolishly reduced to mere commitment, which was expressed in deeds and hollow words that carried little emotion or meaning. Every "I love you," had become a statement of satire that was well meant, but neither given nor received with the resonating verve that once chased the demons back to the shadows and thawed the frozen nights. No blankets could warm the bed in which they slept. No fire could heat their frost-bitten hands that were no longer clasped. Their lips, which had once been irresistibly drawn to one another, now met more as a matter of protocol than expression. Feelings of comfort and warmth would visit, but they were nothing more than fickle flights of nostalgia, reminding them of how they once felt, recalling the love they once had, and the people and lovers they had once been, flipped through with a smile like a picture album, and just as quickly put back on the shelf to collect dust. The actuality of love had been replaced by deeds of duty that were overshadowed by the underlying truth of disconnection and apathy. And when time had passed, and the the day of death finally came for one or the other, a single tear would trickle down a tightly clenched jaw in mourning for the loss of a human life, and the epitaph would honestly read in true past-tense, "I LOVED YOU."

Thus the sun retreated once more, the reinvigorated clouds rejoined, and the rain fell, harder and colder than before.

Alone in the Dark, Part 1

Gray clouds loomed over the vacant city street, menacing and cruel, pressing rain harder and faster onto the pavement below. The silence of midnight had swallowed the sleepy citizens who rested cozily in soft beds, with gentle fires flickering in the distance, warming their bodies and hearts. Fat drops of rain repeatedly pelted all that it could, sending every sound from the lightest splash to the deepest sploosh into the cold air, dissipating aimlessly in every direction, never heard by the people who would awaken to a clear sky for a new day. A peal of solitary thunder in the distance rumbled through the vacant walkways unnoticed like the faded plea of a beggar. Darkness had come quickly, but it always did, even if no one else took interest. Not a glimmer of light shone from the blackened windows that kept safe the security of the day-dwellers, who dared not tread the shadowy streets, fearful of the unknown. A single street light illuminated the cobbled roads that carried on into oblivion, oblivious of the soft earth now so trodden and bleak beneath the stoney path.

At the base of the light there was a dirty and ragged child, hunched and huddled down to find in his jacket a warmth that was not found in the hearts of those who passed him by day after day. Business, you see. Yes, always a job to do, a chore to fulfill, a trip to take, a percieved responsibility to uphold, or even a ministry to fulfill, too much to do to fulfill themselves, no time to waste dispensing cold cups of water to a singular ruffian whose clothes were too dirty, whose eyes were too dark, and whose heart could not be seen, even when placed right before them. For years he had hidden from the masses, detesting their illusions and delusions and the facade they forced each time one passed another, tipping a hat like a revolver and wishing a "good day" while clenching a dagger desperately behind their backs in wait. He rejected them and they him, and what a lovely relationship forged between the two that hardened hearts and heated the hallways of hell with each whispered malice echoing in their brains. When light would come, the boy retreated to his alley, to his blankets, to cover from the sunlight soon arriving.

There was a time, you must understand, when the boy smiled as the solar rays lit upon his face and the happy cheers of the children would run in his ears gleefully, inciting imagination and magic and wonder in the world ever before him. With other children he would endlessly play, laughing, full of joy and care, and when one would fall the others were quick to lift them back up where tears would turn to toys and night never fell. Even now, the memories harkened him back to those simple afternoons and lazy lunch hours where friends shared more than funny stories and sliced apples, where intangible truth was a pleasure taken for granted as the never-ending days drove them into a life-long youth that was happy and healthy, and in which no pal was ever alone for long, if at all.

Like a wisp of smoke from grandfather's pipe, the aroma that seemed to last forever was now gone, irretrievably absent. Whether by blood or burial, no one could tell for sure, but the epitaph read clearly: DEAD AND GONE, BORROWED AND BANISHED, ALONE YOU ARE FOREVER. At the final breath, now that all was gone the child fled the light of day seeking the solace of the night, a comfort not woven with a gentle embrace nor pressed with a tender kisses, but in the loss of feeling that had caused him so much grief and pain. The children that once laughed with him now laughed at him, although he endured the affliction like a good stoic in silence, with a busy mind that vowed vengeance without remorse, a boiling bane raged beneath that he would one day spill upon them, scalding their souls, leaving them scared and broken. Fleeing, he took to the alley, sleeping through the quaking terrors that stalked him as prey, until fear, like love, was vanquished, turned into a wisp of smoke and gone. Hate his tool and wrath his rule, suffering not the tormented voices placed before him to reawaken the heart that still beat faintly within his hollow chest.

Divided to Be Conquered

One of the concerns that is consistently at the soul of the writings of the Apostolic and Patristic fathers is regarding the unity of the Church. Consistently, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others of that first generation after the Apostles rail against schisms, divisions, and any group that would segment itself from the rest of the Body of Christ. Indeed, so repugnant was the concept of division to them that it is almost always associated with a heresy within the Church. As I have gone through the works of these early theologians, because of whom we have such keen understanding of fundamental theological concepts, I found myself convicted and angry as I looked at the present state of Protestantism with the endlessly dividing factionalism and the refusal for local bodies within the same small towns and even big cities to come together for any reason, except maybe an anti-abortion protest or to disparage certain politicians. After all, politics is so much more important than the service Christians are actually called to, isn't it?

I recall when I was younger, more idealistic, and new in the Lord coming up with the idea for a unified Christmas Eve service in which all the orthodox churches of my home town would come together, worship the Lord together, draw closer together, and hopefully draw people closer to the Lord as we obey the emphatic commands of Christ in John 13:34, 15:12, 17 that believers are to love one another. I imagined how great it would be to see all of those who follow Christ in that small area coming together, setting aside some of the unimportant and non-essential differences that place us in different buildings on Sunday to declare the majesty of our Lord and the miracle of His incarnation. Sadly, I found no one interested. Even after speaking with three different pastors, I was basically shooed aside and dismissed as though I was trying to bring about a pagan revolution in the church. I quickly had all my hopes dashed and learned my first lesson in Protestant church division: they don't want unity, they want their own little group. Through this, I have come to agree with Irenaeus that those involved in dividing the Body of Christ most frequently do so on account of, "false self importance, or pride, or blindness and perversity."

You see, we live in a culture that permeates our minds with the idea that the individual is of paramount importance over the group. Disgustingly, this anti-Biblical concept has infected the church, leaving too many people more concerned that THEIR preference is appeased, that THEIR needs are met, that THEIR hearts feel a certain way, and that THEIR hearts are considered above anyone else's. If you think I'm over-reacting, open a phone book and look at how many different churches presently exist in a city like Portland, or a small town like McMinnville. Ask yourself why so many different local bodies are necessary in radical disproportion to the population of believers in such an area. Consider in your mind whether or not this is a healthy representation of the Body of Christ to the non-believing community in those areas, or an adequate and healthy way for the church to run. If you are honest with yourself and the facts, both will be answered in the negative.

Unfortunately, too many Christians have found a convenient invention to convince themselves that this division is "normal" and "healthy." By creating a difference between the "local" church and the "universal" church, it gives most the illusion that there is some unity among local houses of worship, even when all facts available clearly disagree. Indeed, this division is a later invention that is not found in the earliest church fathers, at least not in the convoluted way it presently exists. Indeed, the local church was an integral part of the universal church, and all were quick to unite PHYSICALLY, not just in some ethereal, metaphysical realm of ideas that has no visible manifestation. They were not perfect, nor without mistakes, but silent division on the basis of secondary issues was NOT one of the problem with which they battled. Consequently, their Gospel message and message of love was much better received, because they SHOWED it among themselves and in the world at large. Today, we're too busy whining about those noisy Pentecostals, or those stodgy secessionists; we would rather whine about how "boring" liturgy is or that the worship team didn't play our favorite short, simple, overly repetitive praise chorus. None of this glorifies Christ, none of this exalts the church, and none of this is healthy for the Body of Christ, nor for the members of it. On the contrary, it is a disease that is rotting the Body from the inside out.

This disease is not restricted to the church. We have so failed in our call to unity that even Christian educational institutions are suffering from this disease and struggle to maintain as a result. Consider what would happen if all the Christian grade schools, middle schools, and high schools came together to form one, solid, strong school rather than maintaining divisions. Consider what kind of Christian university could be built if the smaller Christian colleges and seminaries united to form one, solid institution from which theology could be taught from diverse, orthodox points of view. Would not such institutions be stronger, healthier, and more beneficial to the body than the smaller sub-divisions that presently exist? The answer is an obvious yes.

And let me make this clear: a good portion of this revelation was made to me as I was actively involved in doing the very thing I am now speaking against. I have approached the Church from a consumerist point of view, I was once part of a church-plant team, I have my own preferences and ideas about the what constitutes a "good" church service. What makes me difference is that I have come to see that they are all WORTHLESS! What good is MY preference if it does not benefit the Body of Christ? What use is another church planted in an area already saturated with churches that are barely half full? Of what value are MY ideas if they do not serve the entire Church, including local congregations already in existence? None. None whatsoever. They are selfish whims, ego-centric desires, and dust in the wind. They are the act of a rebel who wishes his own will imposed on the local church community rather than submitting to it as we are called to do.

Lest I be misunderstood, let this be clear: I am not calling for universalist unity. There are clear and decisive doctrines that cannot be compromised, such as the triune nature of God, the dual nature of Christ, His sinless life, atoning death on the cross, physical resurrection, just to name a few. We cannot compromise those, nor tolerate those who do. With this, neither am I saying that secondary issues ought to be ignored or danced around. On the contrary, healthy, mature discussion on such issues is healthy and beneficial and should be conducted with the love and grace we are called to show one another. Moreover, I am not saying that all believers ought to return to the Church of Rome, as some my mistakenly think. However, it would be prudent to recall that Luther himself was not seeking a division, but a reformation WITHIN the Church. He himself said that a return to the church was the ultimate goal, not a continued splintering that became an absurdity unto itself.

So what is the solution, you are probably wondering? Pack up all the churches in an area and try to combine them down into one? As nice as that might be, the problem is in the hearts of men, which is then reflected in the behavior. It needs to start with pastors coming together consistently, enjoying one another's company, discussing theology, and helping one another rather than competing. Those pastors must then relay this unity to their congregations, emphasize it by having joint ventures with other churches, and never allowing a schismatic point of view to alter this course of actions. At the same time, Christian congregates need to quit acting like whiny children, bouncing from church to church whenever something doesn't go their way. The laity must learn to shed the selfish individualism that has polluted the church not see the diversity of local bodies as a way to run away from problems and conflict like a coward, but rather to turn and deal with such things like a grown up adult. In short, the church members need to put aside the old man, and put on Christ Jesus; they need to set aside their own pride and value the Body over the body part. Even shorter, they need to quit worshipping themselves and be devoted to honoring Christ. Until this is done, the schismatic church will continue to dissipate, rot, and utterly fail at adequately reflecting the heart and purpose of our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus.

The Plight of Rifqa Bary

As I have read a few article written by liberal writers dealing with the situation surrounding Rifqa Bary's conversion from Islam to Christianity, and following flight from her parents, I have been disgusted at the unlimited amount of baseless empathy and benefit of the doubt given to Miss Bary's father and mother. Some try to make Miss Bary out to be nothing more than a rebellious teen trying to secure some "fame;" others consider her a pawn of certain Christians who are "using" her to "slander" Islam and other Muslims. They conveniently ignore that, according to numerous reports Mr. Bary had randomly dissolved his business that made more than $200,000 annually. They gloss over the fact that the Bary family were so piously Muslim that, despite such a large annual income, they rented rather than owned because devout Muslims are not allowed to take on mortgages. In fact, they do everything they possibly can to discredit this girl, dismissing her claims of being beaten as lacking evidence, and nearly laughing at her claims that her father had prepared to take her to Sri Lanka to conduct an honor killing, or possibly imprison her at an "asylum." I cannot help but wonder if such scrutiny would be leveled on a potential "abuse" of victim if the parents were Christian? I also cannot help but wonder why the liberal media is so passionate in attacking this girl's story?

One thing has been made clear since the 9-11-2001 attack on the United States by Muslim radicals and that is that liberals are adamant in their support of anything Islamic, and equally passionate in leaching onto and bleeding any story that they consider "damning" to Christianity. Consider the contrast in coverage given to Islamic-based bombings and attacks in Europe or other Arabic countries, including murdering homosexuals and women who "dare" to think for themselves with the coverage offered to disgraced "pastor" Ted Haggard. A quick bi-line might be offered as a sub-story about Islamic attacks, but Mr. Haggard's moral failings spawn a small series of stories that are nearly front page news. It is a hypocritical irony that Christians are degraded as "homophobic" because they believe a certain practice is morally wrong, but Islam is a "loving" and "tolerant" religions despite the trail of violence and murder that IS IN AGREEMENT with their "holy" texts. Sure, some moron will be quick to pull an Old Testament passage OUT OF CONTEXT and try to make the two faiths equal, but anyone who is even remotely educated in Christian or Jewish theology knows better and would not make such a bogus and idiotic comparison. One thing is clear: if this were a Christian couple accused of beating their child, there would be no defense offered for their actions, even if no evidence existed. The lack of evidence, in fact, would be summarily dismissed as the artful guile of skillful abusers who were well-versed in disguising and hiding the violent truth. Indeed, every facet of their lives would be torn apart in an effort to paint them as true villains, and the little girls as a freedom fighter on the same plane as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi. As it is, the the Bary's are Muslim and under the sanctity of liberal media protection, so they can do no wrong and no evidence can be presented that will dissuade their crusade.

Exactly why the media is dedicated to portraying Islam as a "peaceful" and "honorable" religions is left to speculation. Some might be cowards, afraid of speaking against Islam for fear of being murdered, a threat that certain European writers presently lives under. Perhaps other are so dedicated to impugning Christianity that "replacing" it with Islam is their ultimate goal. Regardless of the myriad of reasons these mindless sycophants might have for distorting the facts about what Islam teaches, nothing can justify the character assassination that is presently being orchestrated by the media upon Rifqa Bary. Such an attack would not be performed or tolerated were this girl a Muslim convert seeking to escape Christian parents. Indeed, the ancient battle cry that the "seriousness of the charge" warrants such unilateral and blind support for the alleged abused would be hoisted once again and a wall of protection would be built around such a "brave" young woman. As it is, Rifqa converted to Christianity, which makes her anathema, a curse, a plight on the face of Islam that the liberal media has tried so hard to disguise with prosthetic information and the false make up of ignoring any facts contrary to their disposition.

Rifqa Bary may well be sent back to her Muslim parents. She may well be forced to go to Sri Lanka. She may well be the victim of an "honor" killing, or she may be imprisoned in an "asylum." If those things happen, don't look for reports of it in the leftist media, because such damning truth would violate their myth that Islam is a religion of peace, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Racial Profiling and the Question of Morality

Our president has recently come to the aid of a friend of his by insulting a police officer, even though the president admitted to not having all the facts in the case at hand. In doing this, he made comments about racial profiling intended to paint the police officer as a racist and, effectively, to put all white police officers in a corner where, if they stop "black and hispanics" (who were singled out by the president, not me) they could be labeled as racist and their work could be construed as racial profiling. Personally, I am uncomfortable with this attempt to kneecap law enforcement officials.

Aside for denigrating the work of police officers through subtle erosion of public confidence, the president utterly failed to consider a question that is far more important than if racial profiling exists. In his comments the president spoke of black and hispanics being stopped/profiled by police "disproportionately" to other races. The question that ought to be initiated from this statistic (assuming it is accurate) is not if profiling exists, but if it is well founded. If, for instance, statistics show that blacks and hispanics are more likely to be involved in gangs and criminal activities, then profiling those races in areas where this statistic is true makes sense, the same way that profiling people who look Muslim (no matter their skin color) at airports makes more sense than randomly searching people who almost certainly are not a threat. IF statistics show that blacks and hispanics are disproportionately likely to be involved in gangs and criminal activities, that issue ought to be treated as significantly more important rather than the question of profiling. Once such hypothetical data has been leveled out, then profiling should be considered an issue.

Two things need to be added. First, I AM NOT SAYING that blacks and hispanics are disproportionately likely to be involved in gangs and crime. I would argue that the media and the entertainment industries have successfully created, nurtured, and propagated the idea that blacks and hispanics are more likely to be involved in such activities, and if that is to be reversed, people need to quit embracing and accepting those derogatory stereotypes as portrayed in movies, television and music. Not only does such entertainment encourage the propagation of such lifestyles, but it sits in the minds of people who do not know otherwise and therefore have no immediate way of being educated to the contrary. They are certainly wrong for their ignorant beliefs, but if one is inundated with a certain perspective, and have no experience to counter-act the media message, how are they expected to learn the truth? Education is a key, but such education has to start with the portrayals commonly made in the news media as well as the entertainment industry.

Secondly, there is a certain reality that people seem unwilling to accept, and that is that police profile whenever they investigate a crime or potential crime. In fact, we pay them to profile criminals, which is why I am inclined to trust (although not blindly) their assessment. They track and study criminals ALL DAY, we do not! How would you like someone randomly showing up at your work, telling you how to do your job when they don't have the first clue as to what is going on day-in and day-out, nor do they possess any experience to warrant their attempt to control your job? I would wager most of us would be quite angry, resentful, and perhaps come to detest such a person. It is no wonder, then, that many police officers don't care to associate with too many people outside of other officers!

My argument is not that cops are always right, nor that there is no racism among the police force in American, but rather that society is too quick to use race to discredit police officers even when they are right, and this incident with the president's buddy is a prime example. This wasn't even a case of profiling because a neighbor called the police because they saw someone breaking into the house! This cop is doing his job and the president of the United States calls him stupid on national TV because his buddy was involved? How childish can a person be?

The final solution, and the only one that I believe is ultimately effective, is the return of objective morality. Our society has ignorantly and blindly accepted the idea of moral relativity, often without even realizing the danger of the path we are on. This is expressed in such idiotic phrases as, "that may be right to you, but...." and "what's right to one person...." or even, "who are you to judge?" In making these self-refuting comments, we fail to understand the logical conclusion of this mentality, which is that no one can ever say that anything is "wrong" since "wrong" will only exist in the mind of the individual or in the agreement of the masses, neither of which are objective standards. It is because of moral relativity that the Columbine boys felt fine with killing so many people; it is because of moral relativity that gangbangers can rationalize crime and become apathetic toward those they abuse, victimize, and murder; it is because of moral relativity that organizations like NAMBLA can argue that having sexual relations with children is morally permissible. Consider next time you are about to tell someone that their ideas or actions are "wrong" or "bad" exactly what you mean by those words and what objective basis or example you are pointing to in order to establish such a claim. If moral relativity is correct, there is none and you are doing nothing more than stating a personal preference that is as equally valid as that of Jefferey Dahmer or any member of NAMBLA.

The greater irony is that moral relativity must be an accurate assessment of societal morals if there is no God, because objective morals cannot come from humanity. It's impossible! Mankind lives for 70 plus years, sometimes longer, but never long enough. Humanity is arbitrary and capricious, quick to bend or alter the rules when they don't comply with their selfish desires and wishes. The only way for morality to be objective is if it is imposed from outside of mankind by a higher intelligence who has the authority and capability to make such an imposition. "God" is the only word that qualifies to describe such a being. God would have to be infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and completely just. Such a being is found ONLY in the Holy Scriptures known as the Old and New Testament.

The simple reality is that one cannot divorce any of the questionable activities addressed in this text from the question of morality. Even if this police officer was acting as a racist, who are you to tell him that he is "wrong" when you have no basis for saying so other than your personal preference? And if the president is acting like a fool in blindly defending his friend despite not knowing the facts, how could such an action be wrong if there is no standard for right and wrong? And if people (of any color) are getting involved in criminal gangs and brazenly committing crimes, how can anyone say their actions are wrong if wrong is simply a matter of personal preference? It's impossible. Objective morality must exist, or no morality, the choice is subjectively yours.

In Christ,

Jesse

The Fall of a Titan: Steve McNair's Failure as a Man

Two things must be said from the outset: 1) What is about to be written is direct, aggressive, and in some areas it might be a bit crude for some; 2) I stand by every word, no matter how insensitive. You have been warned.

I used to enjoy watching Steve McNair play. He played through injuries, he wasn't a trash talker, and knew how to throw the ball well. He always came across as a classy guy who was a good teammate and leader, who did charity work, and who cared for his community. When I first heard about his murder this past weekend, I was shocked and a bit dismayed thinking that one of the high quality men from the NFL had been taken away. Now, having read some of the salacious truths about his life, that is all gone. It means nothing, has no value, it's all bullcrap, nothing more. And that saddens me.

You see, for a man to be real man, for a man to be a true leader, a true friend, or to truly have a heart, he must first love his wife and kids above everything, except God. A man must be dedicated and devoted no matter the circumstance, setting a good example for his children of how men ought to act, he must have honor and integrity, two things that are utterly lacking in any man who takes part in adultery. I realize that it is popular in modern American cultures for "men" to act as perpetual adolescents, neglecting true responsibility for "fun" and "self-fulfillment" and the illusions of happiness; I recognize that too many American men are devoid of any true understanding of what it means to be a man, either because they grew up without a good dad at home, or because they rely too much on pop-culture for their sense of reality; I acknowledge that selfishness and cowardice are typical qualities of far to men so-called men; but what I will not accept is the idea that this is a correct representation of manhood. A man loves his family more than himself; a man defends the honor of his wife and family to the death; a man stands up for what is right no matter the cost and guards his honor, knowing that his children are watching for their que as to what a man truly is. What a man DOES NOT DO is squander time with his wife and children while wasting time and money with some whore simply because it makes him "feel" good, or young, or alive, or anything else. So, finding out that McNair had a hot, young dish on the side, with whom he spent vacations while his family was at home, pretty much eliminates any lamentation for his loss, because the damage he inflicted on his wife and children through idiotic, selfish and childish activity is far greater than any bullet could render.

What makes the situation more sickening is to see Jeff Fischer on the television encouraging people to focus on the "positives" of McNair's life. What positives? That he could throw a football? That he gave time and money to charity? That his teammates really liked him? Are those things really valuable compared to his bankruptcy as a leader and teammate for his family? Is society so void of morality that we treasure a man because he can play a child's sport, even though his private life shows a lack of honor and integrity? I love football as much as anyone else, but compared to the responsibility of a husband and/or father, it's utterly meaningless.

Someone might say, "Hey, this doesn't define his entire life, it was a mistake he made toward the end," and such an excuse has some merit when it comes to putting the man's life in perspective for those who did not call him "husband" or "father", however the simple truth remains that the damage this one "mistake" has done is much greater than most people want to acknowledge. Had he not been whoring himself around with a Dave and Buster's skank waitress, had he been home with his family where he belonged, had he been doing the right things, none of this would be an issue. His children would not have lost their father so tragically, nor would they be stuck in the quagmire of trying to figure out how a man truly ought to behave when the primary man in their lives, who should have set a solid example, failed so miserably. Leadership starts at home. Integrity and honor starts at home. A man who fails his wife and children is not a man, nor should he be looked up to by anyone for anything.

Let me make one more thing clear: I'm not talking just about Steve McNair. I am directly attacking and assaulting any so-called man who wantonly and brazen fails in this way. I don't care who you can beat up, how many people you killed, how long you can survive in the wilderness, how well you can fix an engine, whether your a UFC champion, or even what branch of the military you have served in: if you embrace the modern, American concept of "masculinity" that holds perpetually adolescence as a virtue, you have failed to achieve manhood.

Perfection is not what is desired, although I have never been opposed to a person seeking to get as close as possible. It might well be said that, had McNair not been a professional athlete, the whole matter may have never been known outside of Nashville. However true this might be, it does not change the moral connotations for someone who has been elevated by society. Their actions are magnified by their position and if they do not desire to be scrutinized, they ought not seek such positions. Moreover, such reasoning is often an attempt to avoid the facts rather than deal with them. In or out of the spotlight, however, is irrelevant to the cardinal point intended by this writing, namely that a man who engages in adulterous activity is no man at all and no exterior activity can mask that lack of honor and integrity in their hearts and souls.

Aside from the broken legacy left to his family, perhaps the greatest tragedy is that, because of his poor choice, McNair can never fix what he broke. You see one of the great blessings given by God is the second chance. Of such grace and power is Yahweh that even something as cowardly and disgusting as adultery can be repaired by those strong enough and courageous enough to fight through the hard times. Someone who fails to be a true man can attain to manhood once more when he recognizes the absurdity of his child-like behavior and turns away from it. God's hand of mercy can restore anything that humanity can break, if humans are willing to forgive and work through the difficulties. Unfortunately, far too many people lack this intestinal fortitude, and they surrender rather than fight through. This is why divorce rates are so high even among Christians who ought to know better, and it is why families are fractured and destroyed. Regrettably, McNair no longer has this option and his wife and kids now have to find a way to heal this wound alone.

It is past time for real men to stand up for what is right. Rather than being silenced by a society that will hypocritically judge a person for judging another (no matter how right the judgment might be), men need to face the fire and do what is right, no matter the cost. Let your name be cursed by an amoral society and take pride in the scorn of those who lack honor and integrity. Fear no man, but rather fear God and do what is right before His eyes, for anything else is vanity and foolishness. May God's grace and peace be with you all!

In Christ,

Jesse

New York Massacre: Why Are We Shocked?

I need to begin by saying that the questions I am about to pose are not as callus as they might seem. I am always taken back by loss of innocent life, especially so pointlessly, and this shooting (or any of the other recent mass shootings) is no different. However, I do feel the situation(s) warrants deeper questions that ought to tell us something about who we are and, above this, what the logical consequences of ideas can be.

We live in a culture that almost uniformly shoves the idea down our throat that every lifestyle is equally valid. For the most part, our society says that, "As long as you don't hurt anyone, go ahead and do it," always failing to see the insufficient evidence for the condition in that clause. I have repeatedly asked people who recite this inane mantra why it's wrong to hurt people and without exception, I have yet to hear a substantial answer, mostly because, we ASSUME certain moral absolutes in our culture, even while we vocally deny the existence of moral absolutes in general! In philosophy that amounts to pure hypocrisy, we assume the absolute right to our own lives, or even the lives of our children, but are quick to question the right to life of unborn children; we assume that stealing is inherently wrong, but rarely consider lifting someone's internet signal or stealing extra time from our employers as unjust.

So when we read or hear from news sources that a mass murder has taken place, we gasp and wonder why it happened, failing to identify our own lack of reason as the chief culprit. For instance, in a society whose public educational institutions routinely teach children that we are nothing more than a meaningless byproduct of random natural events, and that survival of the fittest is the ultimate rule of nature (even though no ultimate rule can exist), we wonder why this next generation does not respect and revere life! In a time when millions of unborn babies are slaughtered brutally to maintain the personal preferences of the vast majority of those seeking to take such action, how can we look at anyone else to not see life as disposable when its convenient for us? If we can let a comatose wife who is no longer wanted to starve to death, why can't we do the same to a child we no longer want? If personal happiness is the ultimate goal of life, why should anyone else stand in the way of obtaining it? 

As a people, we have lost the soul of our being and strove with all our strength to suppress the truth that we find smacking us in the face whenever an atrocity happens to others, or a minor one inflicts us for a moment. As C.S. Lewis wisely points out, we use logic like, "I gave you a bit of my orange, you should share yours as well," which ontologically ASSUMES an over-arching moral code to which our friends and neighbors ought to adhere. Of course, when we wish to break that code, we work our hardest to downplay its importance. To what then can we point when we wish to see injustice rectified? In fact, the very idea of justice ASSUMES an objective truth that should be enforced, for if justice is left to personal definition, revenge and torture thereby become valid means of expressing justice!

As I have said before, a world that denies moral absolutes is a world that makes Hitler equal to Mother Theresa, Stalin equal to Ghandi, and the murderer in New York equal with the EMT's and doctors who sought to save lives. Moral absolutes MUST exist, unless we simply accept that life is random and absurd and that no one's actions are "good" or "evil" or "right" or "wrong" by any other standard. If survival of the fittest is natures only rule, then the fittest will survive, whether through murder, genocide, rape, incest, or mass murder, and we have no basis to stand against it. 

People have died in the New York massacre, and other mass-shootings elsewhere, and we feel sad at the life lost. But the simple fact remains that the act of murder is wrong if and only if there is an absolute moral code incumbent upon all humanity that makes murder wrong, otherwise it is just another legitimate means to the end sought by the person murdering. Even as we see on the nightly news the natural consequences of the moral relativism our culture has so passionately embraced and clung to, we still spout the mindless platitudes that support a system that has no movement but a downward descent into anarchy and meaninglessness. This is the indefensible logical consequences of holding the only true moral system to be no moral system, and just as every great society, empire, and culture in history has collapsed and been destroyed by its own zeal for a secular, amoral body politic, so shall we trod the beaten path to meaninglessness if we do not relent of these unreasonable worldviews, assuming of course, it's not already too late.