Tag Archives: Divided America

The Chosen: the Pride Flag Controversy

Posted on by
6
Jonathan Roumie as Jesus in The Chosen

Sometimes I am so disappointed with Evangelical subculture. There are some great things there, and in my opinion, one of the best things to come out of those two, dismal COVID years was Dallas Jenkins’s series about Jesus called The Chosen.

Apparently like many people, I didn’t have high expectations for The Chosen. That has changed. There are many things Jenkins and company really get right. A big one is that the writing team consults with a group of advisers from various backgrounds, including a Messianic Jewish rabbi. The fruit of this is good. The Chosen series feels very Jewish, as it should. It has been a conviction of mine for years that one cannot understand Jesus deeply without understanding the Jewish context in which He lived His earthly life.

Another aspect to love is the concept of character development. Some are now viewing this as a red flag – the concocting of “unbiblical” back-stories to fill in the gaps of the sparse biblical narrative. But friends, this is called historical fiction – creating plausible narratives that are informed by a culturally recognizable context, including both actual and made up events.

But is this a good idea? Is this taking liberty with the sacred text? I would assert that the writers are not taking liberties with the text. When the show’s dialogue intersects with actual biblical passages, the writers take care to remain true to what is written in the scriptures, and a biblically literate viewer is always able to recognize those passages. Here is a screenshot of the intro from episode one:

Intro message from episode 1 of The Chosen

So why the back-stories? In my opinion, this is the genius of The Chosen. It is these fictitious back-stories that enable viewers to emotionally connect with the characters, so that when we do get to the scriptural words and actions of Jesus, they land on us in a more profound way.

The characters are unapologetically depicted as human and flawed, and we understand that something like what we’re seeing may very well have occurred that made the words and actions of Jesus more meaningful for them than we know. Think of the comfort and prestige of Nicodemas’s life and the tension that creates in him. Or Nathanael’s desire to glorify God, and his crisis of faith under the fig tree. Or Mary’s struggle with her past and with her self worth.

Every character is imagined with a unique story and personality. We can sympathize with them and their struggles. This is good storytelling.

To segue into the flag controversy, there is another aspect to love about The Chosen. We now know that Dallas and his wife have chosen to run their company in such a way that “there is no spiritual litmus test” for the people they employ. Furthermore they do not disallow personal expression within an employee’s personal space, nor do they attempt to monitor their employees’ social media accounts and personal lives. Consequently there is a diversity of opinions being expressed on and off the set. In Dallas’s words, “we discuss our differences in the context of relationship”… as a “family” To me that’s Spirit-informed thinking.

This diversity of viewpoints on the set showed up recently in a promo video for season four. An independent contractor had an American flag and a pride flag mounted on his camera, and the flags briefly appeared in the behind-the-scenes video. Fans were not pleased. Accusations have flown. Rumors have spread. Many have withdrawn support. Comparisons have been made to Target and Bud light. A boycott has been called for.

Director Dallas Jenkins responded with a 20 minute Youtube post, but the majority of people commenting are not satisfied. Within evangelicalism and conservatism there is currently a backlash to LGBTQ+ initiatives and not without good reason. Concerns run the gamut from the erasure of biological women, their opportunities, and their private spaces, to children being psychologically and even physically damaged by gender ideology. So a pride flag on a promo video for The Chosen is unacceptable for many fans, regardless of why it’s there.

So why was it there? Dallas claims they didn’t notice it. Perhaps because it’s something they see every day on set. But he stated clearly, “I don’t celebrate pride.” The Chosen did not “wave/promote the LGBTQ pride flag” as some claim. I appreciate his transparency regarding how he runs his business. I think letting us see the diversity behind the scenes is better than editing out the flag and projecting a false image of everyone on the set being a conservative evangelical. It’s also better than banning personal expression on the set and punishing non-compliance, as some are now advocating.

But what about the message that’s being sent in the promo video? It looks like The Chosen is advocating LGBTQ+ ideology! Well, you could certainly say that. You could also say that it looks like some of The Chosen employees support LGBTQ+ ideology. Which apparently is true. However, the message that’s being communicated through The Chosen is in the show itself, and Dallas Jenkins is in control of that. So far, I’m not seeing liberal theology or “progressive Christianity” being promoted. I’m seeing a biblically-based focus on the person of Jesus, and on His messiahship. And I’m hearing about a lot of good fruit.

I agree that the concerns around gender ideology are legit, but this is not about The Chosen leadership compromising their beliefs. It’s about their association. I think Jesus might have something to teach us about that, but it might not be what some Chosen fans are thinking. Critics charge, “but Jesus said, ‘go and sin no more.’” Note that the Pharisees said that too. What do you suppose the difference was? One difference I see is that Jesus “associated with the lowly.” He ate with “sinners and tax collectors.” He served and had significant associations with women, “unclean” people, Roman soldiers, prostitutes, Samaritan “half-breeds,” gentiles, the poor, and others with whom the Pharisees would not associate. He therefore had credibility with marginalized people.

Regarding LGBTQ people, the conservative Evangelical Church has generally done a poor job of treating them as valuable human beings created in God’s image. Our “pro-family” stance is not perceived as compassionate, and that is a problem. There are many gay people who do not subscribe to the activist LGBTQ agenda. There are people in, or formerly in, our churches who have unwanted same sex attractions, but don’t feel they can tell anyone. There are dysphoric young people who are vulnerable to the acceptance being held out by LGBTQ activists, while the pro- family majority doesn’t feel very welcoming.

There is an enormous amount cultural confusion around the issue of human sexuality now, spurred on by media’s repetition of progressive myths like, “sex is a spectrum,” and “gender is a social construct.” The church of Jesus should be a clarifying and compassionate voice in the culture, but often we repeat tropes and platitudes with an approach that is more political than spiritual. Instead of approaching our fellow travelers with friendship, compassion, understanding, science, and revelation, so many of us go barreling down the wide road of groupthink. The Chosen controversy is a case in point; the rushing-to-judgment, rumors, gossip, and factionalism contradict the way of Jesus.

In an entertainment industry that mostly runs the gamut from pointless to poisonous, Dallas Jenkins and company have brought something rich and redemptive to the world. I applaud them for that. I’ve had a couple of points of disagreement with some lines in the show. Disagreements are okay because Jenkins and company are making a good faith effort. You may disagree with my take here. I welcome that. But in the church of Jesus especially, we need to stop being so quick to divide.

The day may come when the actual message of The Chosen departs from the Scriptures and badly misrepresents the Jesus we know and love. For me, that day is not today. If and until that day comes, how astonishingly self-defeating it would be if this project were to grind to a halt because of the reactions of Christians. SMH.

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls
(Prov 11:30, NASB)

There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, But the tongue of the wise brings healing (Prov 12:18, NASB)

The heart of the wise makes his speech judicious and adds persuasiveness to his lips
(Prov 16:23, ESV)

Why Pro-Lifers Should Compromise on Abortion Policy

Posted on by
5


Pro-life abortion justice
CONTEMPLATION OF JUSTICE – from the US Supreme Court building, sculpted by J E Fraser. (Manipulated photo used with permission: Matt H. Wade: CC-BY-SA-3.0 ).

I’m going to present to you a rationale for compromising on pro-life public policy from a biblical perspective. It’s a rationale I don’t recall hearing in my 40 something years as a conservative evangelical pro-life person. If you consider yourself to be pro-life, I’d like to hear what you think.

First, I should probably give you my pro-life creds. It was during my art college years, (1978 – 1982), that I first thought much about abortion as a social and human rights issue. I was smack in the middle of the religious right push to rally the church around the issue of abortion during the late 70s. The works of Dr. Frances Schaeffer, (now deceased), and his angry son Franky, (now an ex-evangelical), were highly influential for me.

For several years I regularly picketed my local Planned Parenthood clinic, as well as an occasional independent abortion clinic. During the “Summer of Mercy” (1991) organized by Operation Rescue, I was arrested along with a group of other pro-life activists at that same Planned Parenthood for a planned, peaceful act of civil disobedience. By design, we were dragged, one by one, to a paddy wagon and put in jail for locking arms and sitting quietly in front of the entrance of the clinic.

So I got to see the pro-life movement up close. I had a lot of invigorating conversations with pro-lifers of differing backgrounds from mine, as well as with the ever-present counter-protesters. I had a life-changing conversation that I still remember with a brilliant young woman from Feminists for Life. I still smile at the memory of two blonde, articulate, regular female protesters, who had a commanding presence and were always joined at the hip, and whom the counter- protesters nicknamed “the Barbie Dolls from Hell.”

I got to see first-hand that the oft repeated media accusations against pro-lifers are not true: accusations that pro-lifers don’t care about life once it is out of the womb. That pro-lifers don’t care about women. That the pro-life movement is driven by men, and so on. These were compassionate people who lived out their convictions.

I tell you all of this to show that I have been ardently pro-life for my entire adult life, and continue to be so. I believe that upholding a belief in the sanctity of human life for all people is good for all people. (No, I am not in favor of capitol punishment, btw.)

I know the pro-life arguments around the hard cases regarding abortion – life of the mother, rape and incest, and severe fetal deformity/disease.

The proposed exceptions

These exceptional cases bring us to the question of compromise. Since the overturning of Roe, mainstream pro-life organizations have been speaking of “an abortion free America” and “a total ban on abortion.” I understand where they’re coming from. If abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, which it demonstrably is, then there can’t be room for compromise.

But, what if God thinks otherwise?

Evangelicals believe in a God who is love (1 Jn 4:16), a God who “is light and in Whom there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1:5), a God who created male and female as equals in His image (Gn 1:26,27), Who “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they should repent” (Ez 18:23, 32; ch 33:11), who created the ideal of lifelong, faithful, monogamous, marriage (Gn 2:23-25; Mt. 19:3-6).

So, hypothetically, if such a God were to deliver a body of public policy to a nation of people, He wouldn’t compromise on what He knows to be right, would He?

Except that, if you think about it, that’s exactly what he did when he delivered the 10 commandments and the Torah to the Hebrew nation under Moses. The Torah contains several concessions. Jesus spells one out here: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” He’s explicitly allowing a concession around a right and good ideal because of mans’ brokenness.

I contend that the Torah is not an expression of God’s ideal. The ideal expression came with Jesus and the New Covenant – you have heard it said…but I say to you: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Hold on to that particular thought for a moment.

This idea is not widely understood. I get flak for this all the time in my conversations with atheists and “skeptics.” In the Torah they think they see God condoning male sexism, slavery, xenophobia, and genocide. If God is so good, they say, then why did He hand deliver such an inferior body of law to His people? The Freedom From Religion Foundation could do better than that. Supposedly.

Well…why would a compassionate, holy, and just God compromise His standards with fallen people?

I’m sure the answer is multi-faceted, but the obvious one to me is that the Hebrew nation couldn’t have handled a higher standard, so God gave them a low bar. If God were to remain just, demanding obedience to the highest bar would’ve wiped the Hebrews out. Can you imagine – “if you even look at a woman to lust after her you are liable to judgment”? Not committing adultery was at least possible for them. As it was, the nation failed miserably to obey God’s Torah for much of its history, even given a law containing concessions.

Before Moses and the Torah, the Hebrew nation was enslaved for 400 years to an idolatrous nation that served a pantheon of gods. This was all Moses’s generation had known apart from whatever slivers of oral tradition around YHWH may have survived within the enslaved population. The Hebrew people who received the Torah from God were unregenerate, were not born again, did not have the Spirit of God dwelling within them. That would all come later when Jesus would eventually establish a better covenant, a better salvation, and a better kingdom based on better promises, and a better torah. (“Torah” literally means “instruction.”)

This is my rationale for compromise today. Let’s apply it to abortion policy in America.

I believe the pro-life position to be correct and good. It’s certainly best for innocent life in the womb, but also arguably for women and society as a whole. But we are now charged with coming up with public policy that must apply to a diverse population of people, many of whom do not hold to a pro-life ethic. Furthermore, law demands compliance, and consequences for failure to comply. I’m arguing that we need to set the bar lower than “an abortion-free America.”

In my opinion, post Roe, abortion should be allowable in 3 exceptional cases. In each of these cases, the mother will have had no say in some aspect of her pregnancy. Therefore, compromise is justifiable. Let’s look at each case.

When the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother

This one is a no-brainer. Abortion has always been allowed to save the life of the mother, and pro-life groups argue that this is still the case today, post-Roe, in every state despite what some media claim. The pro-life position has never been that the life of a developing fetus takes precedence over the life of the mother, but that the rights of both should be considered.

In cases of pregnancy resulting from rape and/or incest

I understand the pro-life arguments against abortion in this case – that the resulting new life is not at fault; that two wrongs don’t make a right, and so on. I have a friend who describes himself as “the product of a rape.” He has a lovely family now and is happy to be here.

Nonetheless, the reality is that if a woman can be forcibly made pregnant, and then by law cannot terminate that pregnancy, then we truly are mandating forced pregnancy. I don’t see justice for the woman in that. For those women who choose to carry such pregnancies to term for the sake of the developing baby inside of them, they are remarkable human beings choosing extraordinary compassion and self- sacrifice. But I think it is too much to ask that women should have no choice in such a situation.

In cases of severe fetal deformity/life threatening disease

Again, I understand the arguments. But again, I think forcing compliance is asking too much of women who do not agree with those arguments. There are a number of fetal diseases that usually result in the death of a developing baby before, during, or shortly after birth.

I have supported and watched a mother who is very close to me carry a baby diagnosed with trisomy 18. We all hoped and prayed for a miracle. She carried the baby for 20 weeks, and then delivered a stillborn son. I watched her and her husband humanize and dignify this baby’s short life by naming him, holding him after birth, weeping over him, and eventually scattering his ashes in the mountains. I think what she did was amazing, right, and beautiful – tragic though it was.

This woman had a supportive husband and extended family in addition to her faith and pro-life convictions. But I think it is too much to ask to force all women, even those who may not believe in miracles or who may be in difficult circumstances, to comply with a total abortion ban in cases like this.

Conclusion

I am not advocating compromising one’s own pro-life position here. The question here is about setting a lower bar regarding public policy for the diverse, general population. Kinda like God did with the Hebrews. Allowing abortion in these difficult situations does not require abortion for those who hold to an uncompromising pro-life ethic. It does not militate against a culture of life. It does seek to balance the interests of girls and women with the interests of their developing offspring.

There is nothing else like pregnancy in terms of what it requires of an individual. An unplanned pregnancy in and of itself is a life-altering undertaking, even without abusive or life threatening circumstances surrounding it. Few woman would choose a life-threatening pregnancy, non-consensual sex, or a life-threatening diagnosis for her developing offspring. While it is indisputable that a new human life begins at conception, it is a justifiable compromise that women have the option to end a pregnancy in these situations.

I am very interested in hearing your comments below.

(Here is the link to my new rebuttal video to, “The History of Abortion,” in case you missed it):
https://youtu.be/JLvniDOrQgo

What Is REALLY Behind the Pro-Life Movement? A Response

Posted on by
3
a depiction of the abortion debate
I created this ink illustration in 1990 as part of an ad that I intended to run in the Kansas City Star. I never followed through, but I still think it’s a pretty fair depiction of the abortion debate. So I put it in my video…

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted, despite the consequential events that have occurred in the world over recent months. The reason for my disappearance is that I’ve been working on a video. I’ll keep this post short because I’m hoping you will watch the video. I also hope you will like, subscribe, and share it. (Assuming of course that you like it, want to see more, and think it’s worth sharing!)

I’ve wanted to get into video for some time because I’ve heard that more people are inclined to watch than read, especially young people. However, I don’t particularly like being in front of a camera, so my art and design will serve as the visual part. I don’t particularly like the sound of my voice either, but there’s not much I can do about that.

…Except maybe, for the narration of my next video, I’m thinking of faking a Scottish accent. ‘Cause…you know…my name is Scott. So even if it’s badly done, no one can accuse me of not being Scottish.

This first video is a response to another video, narrated by actress Alyssa Milano, that came out just days after the Supreme Court decision sending the question of abortion rights back to the states. Milano’s video is called, “The History of Abortion.” Many of the statements made in that video were so egregiously incorrect that I just couldn’t ignore it. I think you’ll find my video response fascinating, and you’ll hear some things you haven’t heard before.

At the same time, I’m hoping that my video won’t come off as an attack. It’s clear to me that God has called us to be peacemakers and ministers of reconciliation. For some time I’ve felt compelled to be a bridge-builder to whatever extent that is possible. Unfortunately I still see far too little of this in public discourse, and I’m especially bothered by people who call themselves Christians and conservatives behaving like jerks toward people who disagree with them.

Of Course, this is a human tendency, not a Christian or conservative one, but I guess it’s just that I expect more from people who call themselves followers of Jesus. Thanks to all of you who have commented here over the years, for your respectful approach!

I think I will leave it at that for now, and let the video speak for itself. I will need to follow this up soon with a post for my pro-life friends, as I’ve been doing an informal survey and would love to hear your opinions as well. I will leave you hanging as to what my question is, though if you watch the video you might figure it out.

Here is the link:

Getting To Know Your Worst Nightmare

Posted on by
Reply
It is long past time for political adversaries to lay down the gloves and relearn the art of respectful disagreement.

I was recently invited to share my thoughts at a Unitarian-Universalist (UU) church service in California, via Zoom. According to my host, it is a very liberal congregation in a liberal geographical bubble. Apparently members of the congregation run the spectrum of social liberalism including LGBTQ folks, and some who were formerly evangelicals. Bruce, my host, considers himself to be an atheist.

Bruce and I connected through a Braver Angels event and have since talked weekly over Zoom for some six months. It has been quite an adventure for both of us, and not always a comfortable one. I would say our aim has been to understand each other, with permission to each respectfully challenge the other’s opinions.

At some point Bruce got the idea to share what he was doing with his UU church. Then it occurred to him to have me share as well, I guess just to keep it real. His minister was open to having me as a guest, and so we planned a service, which occurred in April, 2021. Below I’ve linked an edited video of the pertinent parts in case you would like to hear what was said.

To their credit, Bruce and his pastor took a risk in inviting me in. They told me about how they’d wrestled with why it was so difficult to invite me in. They knew they could invite a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or a Rabbi, or an atheist to speak, and everyone would pretty much be fine with it. But for some reason it was daunting to consider inviting a conservative evangelical Christian who voted for Trump twice.

I’m happy to report that the church was very welcoming toward me, and there was a lot of positive feedback afterwards. I did not go into many specifics on triggering issues, even in the Q and A time that followed. My intent was not to trigger people. The point was to inspire people to seek understanding with neighbors or family members who think differently than they do.

I’ll let the video speak for itself. It’s a half hour long but I think you’ll find it interesting. Plus the pastor has a cool Scottish accent. I’d love to hear your feedback.

The Cause of the Divide
If you’ve followed this blog for long you know that I consider American society to be toxically divided. I’m concerned about this and I’m not alone. It is now common to hear people bemoan the loss of civility and respectful disagreement in human discourse, especially in political discourse.

How did we get here? Is there something different going on now than in previous generations?

I think there is. At the risk of sounding partisan, I believe that the divide has been created and nurtured by the far Left, and foisted onto the mainstream. It’s a simple worldview issue. Allow me to make my case.

To be specific, in referring to the Left I am not referring to some fuzzy notion of liberal-ish stuff that I happen to dislike. I’m referring specifically to a neo-Marxist worldview – a view that sees the cause of the world’s inequities and injustices through a lens of oppressor vs oppressed. Whether between economic classes, races, genders, or ideological parties, the Left by definition promotes division and, ultimately, a re-structuring of a supposedly oppressive system via revolution.

So for example, if there is a minority group that is suffering oppression, such as a higher rate of poverty, abuse, COVID deaths, unemployment, addiction, imprisonment, or anything else negative, then there must be an oppressor according to a neo-Marxist worldview.

It would be worth discussing with a neo-Marxist whether or not life is quite this simple.

But Marxism is not what’s new. The America Left and Right have always fought and disagreed. There is something new (and worse) going on here. In previous decades I watched the two sides battle it out in the field of ideas. At their best, opponents would cite facts, history, research, and employ rational discourse. But in the past decade the extreme Left has decided to go around the field of intellectual arguments and go straight to the field of subjective feelings. By assigning conservatives the worst of motives and then leveraging peer/mob pressure and emotional manipulation, the Left has enshrined itself as morally superior.

What’s new is that the Left finally has the power to do so on a large scale.

Having gained control of mainstream media, the entertainment industry, academia, big tech, and mainline church denominations, the Left now has the means to dominate the societal narrative, propagating the message that to dissent from the “progressive” narrative is to take the hurtful, hateful, oppressor position. We are all now familiar with the charge that to dissent from the “progressive” narrative is to be anti-woman, anti-gay, transphobic, racist, white supremacist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, bigoted, hateful, and so on.

Here’s the thing. All of those things truly are immoral and indefensible. If that list of adjectives accurately defined conservatives, then the Left should be exposing and shaming conservatives for the evil oppressors that they are. The problem (for the Left) is that the only way to get those labels to stick to mainstream conservatives is to torture the English language, re-write history, redefine objective reality, and shut down dissent. In my opinion that is what is happening. Plenteous examples provided upon request.

Republicans, for their part have generally not responded to this like adults. Brasher elements have gone into fight mode, which doesn’t win the middle, and allows the “hater” label to stick. They’ve tried to trump the Left with Trump, placing their faith in a man who couldn’t compete in the field of factual ideas. Instead, he responded in kind, specializing in division and bombastic rhetoric, making an already terrible situation worse. I think the saber-rattling, conspiracy crap, and patriot pumping on the part of Republicans is a reaction to the Left’s strategy of unjustly framing them as the great white cause of all the world’s suffering.

Is anyone ready for something better and more honest? Is anyone tired of watching the pendulum-wrecking ball swing back and forth?

The Solution
We have to talk to each other. Neither side is going to go away. Neither side is going to allow the other to force its will onto the other. Ask yourself what the outcome will be if both sides continue the strategy of “hitting back harder.”

So what is the answer? Whoever you are, right or left, if you believe you have the facts, evidence, and the truth on your side, then you have nothing to lose by seeking mutual understanding with “the other side.” In all likelihood, you will find facts, evidence, and truth on both sides. If that weren’t the case America wouldn’t be split down the middle. There are legitimate concerns on both sides of every issue.

People of radically differing worldviews will not agree on specific solutions. So then what is the point of talking? The answer is that we can at least get back to respectful disagreement as fellow human beings. Liberals need to get to know conservatives. If that sounds one-sided, that’s because it is. In my experience, conservatives generally understand liberals; we just disagree with them. We recognize that liberals believe they are acting out of a sense of compassion and social justice. But the reverse is not true. A great many liberals really do believe that conservatives are racist, anti-gay, anti-woman, xenophobic, etc.

It may be up to conservatives to take initiative in seeking mutual understanding. The end result will probably not be a changed worldview for anyone. But it is a very realistic goal that we can return to a place of respectful disagreement in political discourse if liberals can recognize that mainstream conservatives are not motivated by hate. That would be a win for everyone. We can communicate without the divisive labeling. The video will give you an example of how to get there.


Looking for a gift? My new kids’ storybook, The Friendly City, helps kids navigate a culture that is in decline. Visit my BOOKSTORE for more info.