Why "abstinence" doesn't work

This may or may not surprise you, but I don't hold out much hope for teen abstinence programs such as "True Love Waits" or the "Silver Ring Thing," the latter taking place at my church several years ago, having any effectiveness in keeping Christian teenagers from becoming sexually active. Believe me, I don't condone sexual conduct outside of marriage.

But the programs, from what little I've seen of them, leave one major issue out of the discussion: How we as fellow believers in Jesus Christ regard each other.  Without that, the ceremonies become nothing more than just that -- ceremonies to make people feel good but eventually turn to naught.

Indeed, I don't think that a whole lot kids are having sex.  But here's the problem:  The popular kids are, especially male athletes -- which should make sense, because they're the ones that attract girls in the first place.  Many of these same Christians who fear teens having sex will watch these same boys play football on Friday nights and even glory in their victories.  And when you get that kind of near-worship on a consistent basis you often end up not feeling accountable to anyone.  (I'm not saying that all athletes act this way, but those Christians that do play will tell you that the temptation is always there.)

But I digress.  It seems to me that, rather than trying to keep kids out of the sack, we should teach them to regard each other as "brothers and sisters" -- and model that behavior.  Say if some guy tried to hit on your sister -- his name is seconds to live, right?  And if someone picked on your brother, you would rush to his defense, right?  So why don't we treat people in the household of faith like that?  I personally experienced considerable rejection from Christian women because I wasn't what they wanted, and I'm not alone in that.

Just consider whom we choose as elders, pastors or "leaders" in the church -- not always the most spiritually qualified but often those that give off the right vibe, have the right resume, display the right "image."  That's just like the world, frankly, and shows us to be at times hypocritical.

I've been fortunate to have experienced a better way.

My first year in college, at Georgia Tech, I fell into a campus ministry sponsored by a downtown Atlanta church, with many of the women attending Agnes Scott College, a women's liberal arts school located in a suburb.  Let me tell you that there wasn't a woman in that group that rated below a 7 -- yes, they were that pretty.

But I never even thought about asking any of them on a date.  There were several reasons for that, mostly due my own immaturity, but even beyond that the group felt like a true family.  To wit, looking back I really did feel as though these women were my sisters, not pieces of meat or playthings.

That sense of belonging was so strong that, at the beginning of a square dance that the fellowship sponsored at the church, I invited what I considered the homeliest woman there to be my partner.  Out of pity?

Honestly, no.  She simply was the one closest to me, and I didn't give it a second thought.

And that kind of attitude is missing in fears about teen sexuality.  Rather than focus upon the consequences of such for themselves, it seems to me that we should teach kids to learn to care about each other to the point that they would want the very best for each other (think "I just couldn't do that to her/him").  That's the kind of selfless love that not only nurtures but also that the world finds attractive, if for no other reason than it's different.  And then we wouldn't need all these programs to attempt in the flesh what should come naturally by God's Spirit.

A prayer that God can NEVER accept

May his days be few;
    may another take his place of leadership.
May his children be fatherless
    and his wife a widow. 

-- Psalm 109:8-9

It should never cease to amaze me just how much hate goes on in the name of Jesus Christ, but this has broken through the floor.  The above verses have been directed by resentful conservative Christians toward President Obama in the hopes that God will remove him from office later this year; there's even a T-shirt available for sale with that Scripture reference.

Well, I've got bad news for you:  God isn't pleased with that attitude -- at all.  And I would go so far as to say that if you subscribe to it, you will be sorely disappointed in November.

The reason should be simple:  God raises up and takes down leaders for His own purposes, not to suit anyone's private agenda.  Moreover, he will never long allow any ideology to be tied to His Kingdom.  That's why things have occasionally gone well under liberal presidents and poorly under conservative ones -- even when, according to a conservative worldview, they weren't supposed to.

Recall that a similar attitude of "Christian" contempt was displayed 20 years ago toward Bill Clinton.  The Binghamton, N.Y. home church of Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry was so frightened that it went so far as to take out full-page ads in USA and the New York Times imploring Christians not to vote for him.  (Improperly, as it turned out, as under IRS law churches are not permitted to endorse or oppose candidates.)

Not only that, but it gives the impression that "conservative" principles are required to "save" this country from perdition, economic, political or otherwise.  Trouble is, the facts put the lie that notion.

Under Clinton, who was in fact far less liberal than he was accused of being, the economy was relatively good.  (Which is one reason he survived his impeachment.)  And besides, he knew how to run a government.  Indeed, had he not been term-limited out he might still be in the White House.

Under George W. Bush, however, those same conservative principles, coupled with imprudent but conservative-supported military action in Iraq, tanked the economy and he had to abandon such principles to right the ship.  As much as you may have despised the auto and bank bailouts, keep in mind that (at least with the former) the collapse of GM and Chrysler would have had a ripple effect on the rest of the economy.  To wit, they may have saved your job.

But back to Obama:  I guess that I shouldn't be surprised with all this hatred toward him, which frankly is based on envy -- which, of course, is sin.  After all, it seems that many conservatives believe that being in power is their birthright and that anyone who doesn't support that agenda to the letter must be illegitimate.  But since they can't sell that bile to much of the rest of the country, especially in urban areas, they simply denounce him, raise dubious issues surrounding his birth, call him divisive and even a racist ... the list goes on.  They really need to get over themselves.

Moreover, other Republicans who ran for the presidency this year represented a joke.  Remember Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum?  Can you imagine God endorsing any of these folks, whose only claim was that they oppose everything that Obama does?  Is that any way to run a country?

I believe, and have often said, that Obama is guaranteed another four years at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. -- if for no other reason than to show conservative Christians that He does, and they do not, run the show.  But also remember what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount:  "Bless and do not curse ... "  Seems that some folks haven't read that part of the Scripture.

More than just chicken

Chick-Fil-A has apparently struck a nerve. Or, perhaps more accurately, its chief executive officer Dan Cathy has done so.

The Atlanta-based fast-food firm, probably best-known for keeping its stores closed on Sundays in line with Cathy's Christian commitment, has recently drawn the ire of the mayor of Boston, Mass., for being anti-gay-rights.  Specifically, Cathy supports organizations that oppose "gay marriage" and, if my facts are correct, at least one that supports controversial "reparative therapy" for gays to change their orientation; as a result, the mayor is trying to keep Chick-Fil-A stores from opening in that city.

I don't pretend to know his motives -- whether those are his true convictions or thinks he will win gay votes in the process -- but he's wasting his time and energy.

The reason is simple:  Probably most of the folks who oppose same-gender matrimony consider that conviction bedrock and, on this issue, won't bend to the whims of popular culture.  And I mean absolutely never.  From a conservative Christian perspective, it's an issue of improper behavior, not one of "orientation."

Some on the political left have tried to frame same-gender matrimony as a civil-rights issue and especially comparing it with the oppression of African-Americans in the South.  But the analogy fails because sex, sexual expression and marriage simply aren't Constitutional rights.  Besides, one's race is often obvious, while sexual orientation doesn't have to be.

One contributor and a number of posters to Sojourners' left-leaning "God's Politics" blog have said that they would no longer patronize Chick-Fil-A.  They have that right.  They ought to understand, however, that not only will a boycott be ineffective but that it has already sparked a backlash, with supporters targeting Aug. 1 as a day they will specifically patronize the store.

In addition, as I mentioned, Cathy will not change his stance; remember that he keeps his stores closed on Sundays even though he could probably make way more money with an "after-church" rush.  So I don't know what the mayor of Boston is trying to prove.

Who really built the business?

President Obama's critics had a field day when he made a speech a couple of weeks ago with the admittedly ill-timed remark "You didn't build that."  Of course, he was specifically referring to infrastructure such as roads, sewer and water systems and bridges for which government maintained responsibility, but it sounded as though he was specifically referring to businesses.

But his ultimate point was correct -- in more ways than he knew.

A lot of business owners complained that the president was pooh-poohing their hard work with that clause, although if you heard the entire speech in context you would realize that he was doing nothing of the kind.  Rather, he was criticizing the sense of entitlement and freedom from responsibility that they seemed to embody.

The big issue, however, is that those who run businesses do not operate in a vacuum.

Say if you always wanted to own your own business, you put a plan into place and ultimately become successful.  Nothing wrong with that -- but here's where you do owe more to people than you may realize.

First, you had to get the education from somewhere, either in college (which someone had to pay for) or through direct mentoring, so someone had to show you the ropes.  Then, you needed to get capital for financing, mostly likely through a bank but also perhaps through some program, whether private or public.  Then, you had to deal with suppliers.

And -- more importantly -- you had to build a customer base, for without customers all your hard work would go for naught. (I'm probably missing some steps here, but you get my drift.)

Also, if you're a Christian you have to understand that God ultimately gave you these things and that your business, but not just that, exists ultimately to glorify Him.  He requires you to treat your customers and clients with equity and justice, giving them good value for what they're paying and give your employees a fair wage or salary.

One of the major dysfunctions in our economic culture is that too often we focus exclusively on the bottom line and cutting costs, forgetting that our "investments," whether in taxes or people, represent the lifeblood of our economy.  I sometimes think of Jesus' parable of the talents, his point being that we are but stewards of God's created order, and if we simply hold on to what we have because we're afraid of losing it, down we'll do so anyway.

Basically, being in business is not simply about making money, although that's certainly necessary.  Rather, it's part of a social contract for which we all need to take responsibility.

No solution in sight

During this presidential campaign, the million-dollar question remains:  Which of the presidential candidates will be able to fix the economy?

The short answer is that none of them -- Barack Obama, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul -- will.  For that matter, neither will Congress or any other lawmaking body.

The slightly longer answer, however, is that the rotten economy isn't primarily a political problem anyway -- it's a cultural one going back to the 1980s, when the nation was sold a bill of goods called "supply-side economics," the idea, of course, being that if government regulations were removed from business the economy would improve.

It didn't work, but you could argue that it really wasn't supposed to work.  Because the cultural change that it spawned proved to be "bottom-line" economics, where the focus is almost exclusively on short-term profit at the expense of long-term investment.  And that, more than anything else, is sabotaging the economy.

How so?  Well, let's start with the assault on the "welfare state" and unions, which began in earnest in the late 1970s, the former amid complaints about "big government" and the latter, corrupt union bosses.  Now, these were subject to debate; however, the ultimate goal, really, was to concentrate power in fewer and fewer hands -- in essence, to build an aristocracy.

We also saw "merger-mania," which -- far from creating jobs -- actually destroyed them, especially in middle management, which fueled the recession that pushed George H.W. Bush out the door (though Reagan should have shouldered the blame).

We now have an economy based far more on speculation than trade and manufacturing; let's not forget that the recovery that took place under Bill Clinton was largely on paper, thanks to the "dot-com" boom.  Why, for example, would drug companies make their products virtually unaffordable and health-insurance firms cut service and raise rates?  Simple -- to keep stock prices up.  (And the CEO's would be fired for not doing so.)

Anyway, look no further as to why the business community is doing virtually nothing to cause change -- it's already gotten what it wants.  That's what President Obama meant when he said, to the consternation of some of his critics, that the private sector "was doing just fine" -- it actually has a lot of cash on hand that it simply refuses to release.

A few months ago on "60 Minutes," a merchant in Iowa complained that he couldn't get a bank loan to finance his business because the banks just won't lend.  That shouldn't surprise.

Bottom line, there is no solution coming on the horizon.

How to put Jesse and Al out of business

It's a matter of faith to some that civil rights leaders the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are in fact "race-hustlers" who have made their respective careers by causing trouble that didn't exist. I understand that.

And I'm not sure that's correct.

I say that not because I support or agree with them. But they do call attention to an issue that some would rather drive underground — that of an underlying racism that still affects our nation.

However, they have never operated in the South, where racism was not only open but also decreed by law two generations ago. Jackson has long worked in Chicago; Sharpton, New York, so the kind of racism they would address wouldn't be obvious to many. Some years ago Jackson even traveled to Peoria, Ill. to try to defuse a situation where a race riot in a high school resulted in the African-American students receiving harsher discipline than the white students.

So how do we put them out of business?  By doing the hard work of addressing issues of race.  Because, whether we like it or not, there really is a divide that has to be crossed.

Now, that's harder than it sounds, because it may mean stepping out of an ideological comfort zone.  Saying that poor African-Americans are lazy and prefer to collect welfare rather than work in fact displays a lack of understanding of that history. It would help to abandon the talking points and learning about what actually happens.

I often tell my white conservative friends that, even in these days of affirmative action, if they and I were up for the same job or promotion and everything else being equal, on a statistical level they would most likely get it. Racism? Not necessarily. But because they are white they would more likely know the people who make those decisions, and considering that 90 percent of job openings aren't even advertised, if you don't know someone on the inside you're at a disadvantage.

And that's why building intimate relationships across those lines is crucial — but few people actually do it.  It's especially a problem in evangelical churches, where it wasn't even addressed until the late-1980s with the Promise Keepers movement (and founder Bill McCartney even said that involvement dropped when he began to do so).  That said, "my side" also needs to take some risks as well, not assuming that every person with a white skin is racist — I grew up that way but repented in my teens.  There will be misunderstandings, of course, but doing so will take good-faith efforts from everyone involved.

One of my favorite movies is "Cry Freedom," the true story of a white newspaper editor in South Africa who was challenged to learn the truth about a black activist he had savaged. Because the editor did and came to understand the context in which the activist operated, he eventually became an activist in his own right — and suffered some of the same consequences in the process.

To wit, it's time for us to be willing to identify with the downtrodden.  If enough people did so, Jesse and Al might have little or nothing to do.

Once more ... with feeling

You may have heard about the story in today's New York Times about yet another right-wing attempt to unseat President Obama, this courtesy of one Joe Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade and who the article says plans on resurrecting the Jeremiah Wright controversy of 2008, "[doing] what John McCain wouldn't let us do," according to the proposal, originally timed for the summer's Democratic National Convention.

However, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the publicity surrounding it actually served Ricketts' -- and the Republican Party's -- purposes more so than the actual campaign.

The contempt in which conservatives hold Obama simply isn't news, nor are the racist attitudes of some of them, which is why I'm questioning the whole enterprise.  By having this come out now, they place the media in somewhat of a double-bind.

For openers, by putting the story on the front page, the Times allowed the conservative movement to justify its long-standing persecution complex, that "they're out to get us" -- even though the campaign, which would clearly be race-baiting, would be reprehensible in its own right.  But if it were placed on an inside or back page or ignored totally, the rest of the readership would complain that the paper would be kowtowing to the right.

It will be interesting to see the letters that the Times publishes in the next few days, whether readers will complain about Ricketts or they believe that the paper was simply duped into becoming part of the campaign.  The apostle Paul talked about folks who "invent ways to do evil," and we may be looking at just that.