Women Marching...

Last week there were multiple marches across the U.S. The first was in support of the worth and rights of the unborn, held in Washington D.C. The others, held in various major cities from coast to coast, were billed as “women’s marches.” Ironically, the women’s marches were really focused on two things: abortion rights and hatred for President Donald Trump.

Several conservative news sources interviewed marchers and the degree of oblivion was astounding. As I watched the procession, the signs the marchers held were pro homosexual, abortion rights, or hatred for our president. Are we to believe these are the three top priorities for women in America today?   

I’m sure some really felt some sense of threat over what this administration might do that would affect them but rather than based on facts, I suspect their fears were and are fueled by community organizers, Planned Parenthood, and other activist’s groups that want to push their agenda. Most are not willing to engage in dialogue but prefer to scream over anyone who disagrees with them. When asked what policies they disagreed with, not one could give an example. It sounded like they were all instructed from the same playbook: 

1) President Trump is misogynistic 

2) President Trump wants to deny a woman’s right to do what she wants with “her” body 

3) began to scream over those who disagree.    

Does screaming in the street, dressed as a vagina, really win people over? 

A firestorm has been raging of late over sexual harassment against women. Actors, directors, politicians, and others, many well respected, have been dealt a death blow to their careers; some may even find themselves going to prison before it’s all said and done. Like most in this nation, I agree; if they have committed a crime, they should pay. What I find funny, not that there is anything humorous in all of this, is that this one issue seems to be the only topic that both liberals and conservatives agree on, barring the case of Roy Moore.

Moore, a conservative Republican from Alabama, lost his senate run due to allegations of sexual misconduct. His accusers waited forty years to come forward with their claims and most have been overwhelmingly discredited, leading some to believe this was nothing more than a ruse to keep him from being elected. His opponent, Doug Jones, won the seat. Jones is an ardent supporter of abortion. Before the allegations, Moore was overwhelmingly ahead of Jones in the polls.

My intent here is not to make a case for one or the other but simply use this as an example. For many liberal women, and even some conservatives, a “claim” of misconduct against a woman is worthy of a lynching without a trial while abortion is championed as a woman’s right. For most conservatives, a claim of sexual misconduct is worthy of investigation and a proven crime against a woman is deserving of prosecution and punishment. At the same time, most conservatives believe in the sanctity of life for the unborn; all life is precious and worthy of protection.

Regarding the argument of sexual misconduct, my problem with the liberals is how they choose to condemn a man who is simply accused of a violation, if they disagree with his political views, while overlooking a man who has been found guilty when his political views align with their own. Case in point, Bill Clinton. Clinton was notorious for his sexual scandals, while in the White House no less. Today he is cheered as a hero by the left. How? Why?

Is this not hypocrisy at its finest?

It seems that liberal women are dictating morality, even law, in today’s America. Out with the Constitution, out with the rights of the accused (man), and out with the rights of the unborn child. Feminism has finally reached the pinnacle that it has fought so long and hard for. I do not imply that all women subscribe to radical feminist beliefs, this is certainly not the case. I also do not believe that women should be denied rights. I just don’t understand how they can deny the rights they have fought so hard for to their unborn children.

When I was a child, my mother refused to allow us to have a pet hamster or gerbil. Her reason was simple: they eat their own young. As a child, I found this horrible and unacceptable. How could a mother eat their own babies? As an adult, I ask a similar question, how can a mother have her child cut in pieces and sucked out of her womb? The safest place on the planet should be the mother’s womb.

“Pain”

What is pain and why do we experience it?

Like the question of evil, pain is the subject of much discussion. It is one of the arguments skeptics wrestle with regarding the existence of God. The question is usually in the form of, “If God exists, why is there evil/pain?” Many times, the follow up question is, “How can a loving God cause or allow so much evil/pain?” There is not an easy answer, especially for someone who is experiencing a great deal of pain. For the Christian, flippant answers should never be given. 

Many times, well-meaning Christians will try to answer when they have never even truly thought about it. Consider Job’s friends. They had no idea what Job was going through or why. They did good the first few days as they sat in silence and simply hurt with him. Once they opened their mouths, accusations and criticism began, and bad advice followed. Job was a righteous man and was experiencing unthinkable pain, but his wife and friends ignorantly worked to tear him down even further.

Many apologists and theologians address this issue in what is called a theodicy. A theodicy, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a, “defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil.” It often begins with the fall of man back in the garden of Eden. But how does this help a parent who has just lost their infant? If they are a Christian, they already know this. What they are wrestling with is, “why me if God really loves me and I am living my life for Him? It doesn’t matter if they already know why God allows it. They are facing a dark night of the soul and they don’t feel God’s love or presence right now. They are trying to make sense of all this and when you have lost a child (or whatever cataclysmic event it might be), you need assurance that God has not abandoned you.

Perhaps the better question would be, “How is God going to use this for His glory and give me comfort when my heart has been ripped out of my chest?” If you arrived on the scene of an accident and someone had literally had their arm ripped off, would you begin to explain that this is a result of a fallen world that goes back to the garden? Certainly not! At least I hope not. I have been at the scene of many accidents and I have never witnessed this. What I have witnessed is people addressing the wound, calling for help, trying to calm the person, etc. So why do we not address the heart wound like we address the physical wound? What good would it do to explain to someone the physical aspects of losing their arm as they bleed to death? Likewise, what good is it to explain why evil/pain exists to a person who has a heart and soul wound?

I say ashamedly, I think the reason is ignorance and apathy. If we haven’t suffered ourselves, we have never given much thought to addressing the pain of others. I was talking to a young woman who is struggling in her marriage and she asked me why I would spend my time talking to her and others about their pain. I responded, “I think He (God) allowed my pain so that my heart would be tender towards others who are hurting. It's kind of hard to understand if you haven't been there yourself.” This is referred to as being a “wounded healer” by the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC).

I believe God allows many of us to suffer to build our faith and dependence upon Him while preparing us to share with others the hope that comes from Him. When we learn, first hand, how He can restore us through our worst nightmares, we can be a powerful tool to reach not only believers but non-believers as well. Jesus was the master teacher in how to reach out to the hurting. He never made excuses or talked about man’s fall in the garden. He wept at Lazarus’ grave. Why? Didn’t He know that Lazarus would enter into the Father’s presence? Could He not have explained this to Mary and Martha?

Consider the woman at the well. She had sinned against God. What could be more grievous to God (Jesus)? Yet He gently ministered to her need. He made it about her, not Himself. He never condoned her sin but He didn’t harp on it. He showed her a future hope and restoration. This is what made a difference in my life. When I accepted that He knew best and could use my brokenness, my attitude changed. You see, it was no longer about who did what or what could I do. It was about laying my burdens before Him and trusting Him that He would do everything He could to bring about the most good in a bad situation.

I began to read and study my Bible with a new fervor. I jotted down hundreds, maybe thousands of Bible verses on index cards. I often returned to them when I needed strength. I wore holes in the carpet with my knees. In my greatest anguish, I most felt God’s love. It wasn’t enjoyable, but I wouldn’t trade that experience. Now, when I tell someone of the hope that comes through Christ, in our weakest moment, I speak from experience. I also understand that what a hurting soul needs is love and compassion, not judgment and condemnation. Many times, when a person begins to understand His love through their pain, like me, they naturally want to be closer to Him and they begin to look at how they have hurt Him (sin) and they truly repent.

Luke tells us about a woman who was a sinner. In that day, she should have been stoned, according to Jewish Law. She faced ultimate shame when she approached Jesus and anointed His feet in front of a room full of pious Jewish men. Jesus responded by saying, “

“Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.” -Luke 7:44-47

May we learn from Jesus how to address those who are broken hearted and share with them the hope that is found in Christ Jesus.

.

Ethical Behavior…

1.    ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction :  the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation   2a :  a set of moral principles :  a theory or system of moral values * the present-day materialistic ethic * an old-fashioned work ethic —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction * an elaborate ethics * Christian ethics b ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction :  the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group * professional ethics c :  a guiding philosophy  d :  a consciousness of moral importance * forge a conservation ethic  3 ethics plural :  a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness) * debated the ethics of human cloning                                                   

                    https://www.merriam-ebster.com/dictionary/ethics

Many today, including some scholars, question the validity of truth claims. They argue: “what might be right for you might not be right for me; does truth exists, is there really absolute truth?”

If there is no absolute truth, ethics, at best, can only be a set of guidelines imposed by a family, business, school, religion, or some other such organization. If this be the case and we belong to any such group but hold the opinion that absolute truth does not exist, even if we agree to the terms set forth, say to an employer, are we unethical if we do not live up to the standard we agreed to? No. There is no truth to be accountable for and since there is no truth, ethics are nothing more than a human construct. Sadly, this way of thinking is common today. We see this played out, almost daily, in the media and perhaps in our own little corner of the world.

Do we expect our children to obey us? If their truth does not match our truth, what right do we have to enforce our will on them? Can we really argue that we are right or know what is best for them? When a college professor demands that students not cheat, is he or she within their right? What difference does it make anyway when the goal is to obtain a degree so that a high paying job can be gained? I suggest that this mindset is clearly a picture of total chaos. BUT, is it intentional?

Let me skip now to the purpose of my writing. Yesterday I was confronted with a situation that I would consider falling under unethical behavior. A supervisor, who demands his employees adhere strictly to a code of ethics, not only violated a company policy, he stomped it to pieces. His wrongful actions hurt an employee financially. His supervisors are aware that this is the “norm” for him but since he is close to retirement, they allow it. What message does this send to the existing employees, worse yet, new employees? Is it okay to violate the company’s work ethic after so many years of service or based on who you are or who you know? If this is so, the rules only apply to some and not others. But who decides? What if a new hire decides that they can violate the ethics code as long as they don’t get caught? If they do get caught, who has the right to judge them? Are they not practicing what they are being taught?

I think the word that fits here is hypocrisy.    

Consider this: Would you desire the following people to have been ethical in their training, experience, and practice?

Your doctor?

Airline pilot?

Police officer?

Banker?

Real estate agent?

Auto mechanic?

Baby sitter?

A judge?

If we expect these people to adhere to a moral or ethical standard but do not believe we should live up to the same standard, are we not hypocrites as well?

Suppose we get robbed in front of a group of witnesses. When the case goes to trial, the witnesses and the accused lie under oath. Who are we to judge them? Their truth may not align with ours but it is their truth. Maybe the witnesses fear retaliation. They have no moral or ethical obligation to do what we think they should. The judge, who they have never met, should have no expectation of them to be honest, that is simply his truth.

You see, if there is no absolute truth, no morality, no ethical standard, we can be denied justice. Our whole system will collapse around us.

We cannot control what others do but we can live up to a higher standard and practice good moral and ethical behavior. What we do, not what we say, will form the minds and hearts of our children. Is this not what we want for our children?