A Long Way to Go

This past Sunday morning Bishop Eddie L. Long addressed his congregation and the public at large for the first time since the emergence of four civil suits, filed in Dekalb County last week, that alleged the bishop, “through manipulation, coercion, deception and fraud,” engaged in a sexual relationship with four young men while they were teenagers.  The suits name Bishop Long, New Birth, Inc., and the Longfellows Youth Academy as defendants, and further allege Bishop Long began a confidential relationship with the young men as their spiritual advisor, that he later lavished the young men with expensive gifts and exotic trips financed by funds from the church, then ultimately initiated a sexual relationship with each. The accusers allege Bishop Long preyed upon them as they participated in his Longfellows Youth Academy. The Academy, a ministry initiative under the purview of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, is a tuition-based program for young men, aged 13-18, which “purports to train young men to love, live and lead as they proceed on their ‘masculine journey.’” It has served as a means to guide young men for years, and all of the accusers participated at some point during their tenure at New Birth.

An image of Bishop Eddie L. Long allegedly sent to the accusers, signed with the signature, "Eddie L. Long, Amazed By His Grace."

This fact, that the accusers first encountered Bishop Long as young men seeking guidance from an influential father figure, made the disconcerting “details” in the suits all the more troubling.  The alleged misappropriations of church funds to bankroll these alleged dalliances is also unsettling.  Other evidence has also begun to leak to the public (e.g. pictures Bishop Long took of himself and sent to the young men via text message, accompanied by his signature “Eddie L. Long, Amazed by His Grace.”), which, at best, showcases serious lapses in judgment on the part of Bishop Long.  At worst, the allegations, when coupled with newly emerging evidence, depict a dreadful glimpse into a bishop who preyed upon some of his congregation’s most vulnerable members.

The staggering allegations rocked the Christian community in Atlanta and reverberated across the nation when first revealed.  Bishop Long has received an enormous outpouring of support from his followers nationwide and from notable celebrities, many of whom urge caution before rushing to judgment.  Bishop Long, at the advice of his counsel, has remained relatively quiet throughout the news of the accusations.  Nevertheless, his accusers have begun speaking to the public.  One of the Bishop’s accusers, Jamal Parris, recently spoke to a local news station, telling reporters, “I cannot get the sound of his voice out of my head, I cannot forget the smell of his cologne. And I cannot forget the way that he made me cry many nights when I drove in his car on the way home, not able to take enough showers to wipe the smell of him off of my body.” Another accuser, Spencer LeGrande, said he decided to speak out after learning of the allegations of others.  He said, “They said bishop has been accused of something, and my heart dropped.  And that was my time that God told me to release what I had to say.” Bishop Long elected not to address these allegations with specificity, but he spoke out again Tuesday saying if the media reports were true, “I’d be scared to show up, I’d be scared to look at you. But there’s something in me bigger than the situation.”  Bishop Long has continued to deny the allegations, though his remarks on Sunday, and again Tuesday, did not address them with the particularity many desired.

Bishop Eddie L. Long, left, and President George W. Bush circa 2006

For those who are unfamiliar, Bishop Eddie L. Long is the pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. When  Bishop Long assumed the pastorate in 1987, the congregation had roughly 300 members.  He subsequently grew the fledgling flock into a congregation literally 100 times its previous size, with a 240-acre campus, syndicated TV shows, an array of community programs and ministries, satellite churches in other cities, and a congregation boasting upwards of 25,000 members.  Through the years, he has risen to prominence as a key national figure who led thousands and counseled influential celebrities, athletes and political leaders. When responding to criticism of his extravagant lifestyle, he once famously quipped, “We’re not just a church, we’re an international corporation,” He went on to say, “We’re not just a bumbling bunch of preachers who can’t talk and all we’re doing is baptizing babies. I deal with the White House. I deal with Tony Blair. I deal with presidents around this world. I pastor a multimillion-dollar congregation.”

From left Bishop Eddie L. Long, Usher, Ce Ce Winans, Rev. Jesse Jackson and Pastor Donnie McClurkin

Within church circles, Bishop Long often represented the strength, insight and leadership of a godly man, with thousands pointing to him as an example that men, both old and young, should aspire to emulate.  Moreover, Bishop Long’s ministries have proven capable of achieving what many churches can only imagine, attracting men to church in droves, and transforming their lives as a result of their participation.  Consequently, his status as a leader and molder of men has triggered some of the greater sense of shock and dismay amongst those who have benefited from his ministries.  Moreover, his fervent, outspoken stance against homosexuality made the allegations that surfaced last week completely unthinkable for most of Bishop Long’s congregation.

This scandal involving Bishop Long has again shed light on the taboo of homosexuality within the black church and its crippling code of secrecy amongst many congregants.  As I have written previously, most churches in our community do not do or say enough regarding sex.  Even fewer address homosexuality in a responsible, biblically sound manner. Malik Washington offered similar sentiments when he wrote for NPR’s Tell Me More Blog earlier in the week.  He said, “[O]ur [belief that our] unwillingness to speak about [homosexuality] sustains its inability to exist is also incorrect. No, speaking things into existence does not work in reverse.” As he went on to write, the allegations levied against Bishop Long did not surprise some, because we have seen similar occurrences before.  He continued to argue that those who did not know remained ignorant because “[they] didn’t want to know. “  Regardless of whether Bishop Long’s counsel proves the present allegations false, they bring attention to patterns of abuse and neglect that plagues churches across America.  Such abuse and neglect continues to pervade houses of worship in large part because the self-imposed taboo of sex and sexuality amongst many black churches has rendered many of them impotent when forced to confront sexual impropriety.

On its face, I pray the allegations are false due to the level of influence Bishop Long has wielded over the past several decades and the irreparable harm it would cause to the faith of many who have been impacted by his ministries.  An unfortunate truth with regard to this scandal is that it “[has] given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme.” Christianity once again has been marred by the sullied reputation of one its leaders.  If any good comes from it, the scandal allows for bishops, pastors and elders alike to revisit the level of access they offer their congregants, while also providing a key reminder for churchgoers across the country that they worship God and not the person selected by God to deliver His Word from the pulpit.  Notwithstanding, if the allegations do prove true it would signal a pattern of reprehensible, inexcusable, despicable behavior on his part, such which is never an accurate reflection on the “Good News” of Jesus Christ, and such that would disqualify Bishop Long from the works of ministry.  In short, as Kai Wright of The Root offered, if the allegations are true, Bishop Long is nothing short of a sexual predator who used The Bible, his church and his position of power to prey upon boys.

Jesus offered a stern warning to those who “offend one of these little ones which believe in [Him]“, (there are also stern warnings against harming God’s messengers peradventure the accusers fabricated their allegations).  Furthermore, the Bible clearly articulates the standards a bishop, pastor or preacher of the Gospel should uphold.  Suffice to say, Bishop Long would have much to account for both on this earth and in the hereafter if even a hint of these allegations are true.  Nevertheless, the inability (or sheer unwillingness) of some messengers to practice what they preach does not negate the truth of the message.  What is right is right if no one is right, and what is wrong is wrong if every one is wrong.  God is still perfect, His Word is still true, even if we have a long way to go in showing that to the rest of the world.  I invite you to join the conversation, and share how this scandal has impacted you.

On What Grounds

Nearly a month ago New York’s Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously against granting historic protection to 45-47 Park Place, the site in Lower Manhattan set aside for a controversial Islamic Cultural Center two blocks away from Ground Zero.   The announcement of plans to build the $100 million Center sparked a bitter, protracted national debate regarding religious freedom in the United States.  The Commission’s vote allows for the construction of the Islamic Cultural Center slated to house a mosque, 500-seat auditorium, gymnasium, restaurant and culinary school, childcare facilities, a library, an indoor pool and September 11^th memorial.   The Center has received notable support from prominent figures, including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who remarked on how the controversy fits neatly into the ongoing struggle for religious freedom in New York, and likened the struggle of Muslims in present day New York to the plight of Jews and Catholics during previous times.  The construction has also produced notable objections, including from myself, yet much of it has been subsumed by nagging culture wars, misconceptions and xenophobia.

For example, with looming mid-term elections, numerous political candidates have used the planned construction of the Center as a rallying cry to galvanize their base and “demonize” the iman behind the plans despite remaining silent when the plans for the Center were first announced.  It is difficult to intuit other reasons for such vehement opposition at this present juncture when the announcement of the plans first surfaced in December of last year to little fanfare.   As Salon reporter Justin Elliott commented on WHYY’s Radiotimes recently, it is as though these political figures and their constituents did not know they were supposed to be outraged until little over a month ago.  Nevertheless, they are outraged indeed.

For example, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich argued against the proposed Center by declaring. “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington.”   Kevin Calvey, a Republican running for Congress in Oklahoma added, “ Some of the Muslim leaders associated with the mosque “are clearly terrorist sympathizers.”  Additionally, Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R. – Florida) and Peter King (R. – New York) issued a statement that reads, “This is a terrible choice to be one of the faces of our country overseas.”  Rick Scott, a Republican candidate in the Florida gubernatorial race criticized the center and President Obama by stating, “Mr. President, ground zero is the wrong place for a mosque.”

In sum, the Center and the debate regarding its propriety has become a sharp point of contention.  With all the disparaging remarks and anger strewn about, it has proven difficult to voice legitimate opposition to the Center’s construction without entering into a shouting match.  It has proven more difficult for one to have an honest discussion about the Center’s construction and express concerns, as I do, due to the misconceptions that continue to seep into the discussion.  Notably, it is quite telling how opponents have molded misleading rhetoric into public discourse to frame the language of the debate. Many opponents deride the Center as the “Ground Zero Mosque” as if the plans for the Center were to erect an enormous mosque on the site of the September 11^th terrorist attacks.  No such plans have ever emerged.  The Center has a mosque, but the Center is not a mosque; there is a difference.  It is not at Ground Zero, and cannot be seen from Ground Zero.  These are facts, facts which are often overlooked to further drive opposition to the Center’s construction while it remains politically expedient.  As Senator Harry Reid astutely remarked, “If [Republican lawmakers] are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much –needed legislation.”  Senator Reid highlighted a key observation; many who oppose the construction of the Center due to their stated desire to pay proper respect to those who lost their lives on September 11^th, should be equally concerned with the welfare of the first responders who risked their lives to attempt to save people trapped in the Towers.  No such health coverage is coming because a recent bill designed to provide first responders with health coverage was defeated in Congress.  Moreover, opponents to the Center also seem to have little problem with the fact that Muslims routinely pray in the Pentagon less than eighty feet away from where the terrorists struck on September 11^th.  Such facts lead one to believe the source of the anger expressed by the Center’s opponents comes from something other than concern for preserving the legacy of Ground Zero.  True opposition should find its home in the truth, not deliberately misleading rhetoric.

It goes without saying those responsible for the September 11^th attacks based the majority (if not all) of their justification for their erratic act of terror on their religious fervor.   Moreover, confirmed reports have established that this religious fervor was grounded in extremist interpretations of Islam.  Notwithstanding, the terrorists responsible for the attacks on September 11^th were not the first to commit an act of violence in the name of religion.  In fact, countless individuals representing all religious faiths, have perpetrated horrendous acts of violence in the name of God throughout the span of human history, even if such acts contradict the very faith to which they blindly adhere.  Our nation’s history bears no lack of exceptions, which should teach us to more readily dissociate the actions of several extremists from the actions of adherents of an entire faith.  Particularly, I do not expect anyone to associate the terrorists responsible for September 11^th with the entire Islamic faith any more than I expect one to associate the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, Timothy James McVeigh or David Koresh with all of Christianity.

One would assume in the “nation under God,” we would strive to discuss our differences more amicably.  One should also assume that those who oppose the construction of the Islamic Cultural Center on the basis of their Christian faith could find better ways to do so than by burning Qu’rans and burning mosques. One would believe that we Christians could express our differences to Islam, by showing the love of Christ, revealing His power and preaching sound doctrine.  That is how scripture commands us to handle such disagreements.

As a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I am not thrilled by the plans to build the Islamic Cultural Center in Lower Manhattan.  As an American citizen who is keenly aware of the impact September 11^th has left on America, I believe the plans to build the Islamic Cultural Center so close to the site of “Ground Zero” in this political climate is naïve and imprudent at best.  Nevertheless, the United States of America is not a theocracy.  Our Constitution expressly prohibits government intrusions on worship.  Our governing principles offer religious freedoms that are unique in the modern world, and have legal protections regardless of whether we agree with how that religious freedom manifests itself.   That is the law we are subject to.

The public outcry to move the Islamic Cultural Center sets a dangerous precedent for people of faith.  The day the general public (or the government) may pressure private citizens not to exercise the legitimate dictates of their faith, or may pressure private citizens to worship in a more “suitable” location is the day that births future religious persecution and all its progeny.  The day we tell Muslims where they can pray and sponsor other faith-based activities establishes a precedent for others telling other groups (e.g. Christians) where and when they can pray and exercise their faith.  Such restrictions are perfectly permissible in theocracies and dictatorships, but problematic in democracies.

Christians and Jews alike celebrate the depth of Daniel’s convictions when he “kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime,” notwithstanding the king’s decree that would land him in the lions’ den for thirty days if he did so.  Daniel’s faith was put to the ultimate test in part because his nation’s decrees restricted his worship.  As I have written before, scripture forewarns of a  “falling away”, along with an outright rejection of the idea of worshiping God and conforming to His truth.  There is coming a day, were Christianity will longer be the faith du jour in the United States.  My prayer is simply that I have the courage to continue in the faith when such a day arrives.  In the interim, I pray I love my neighbors as myself, even when I do not agree with what they believe.  I have plenty of grounds to do so.

Taken for Granted

January 1, 2009 Oakland BART Fruitvale Station -- Freeze frame image from Oscar Grant shooting

Shortly before the dawning of the first day of last year, an errant bullet briskly fired from the .40 caliber handgun of former Oakland transit officer Johannes Mehserle, and bore through the spine of Oscar Grant III, spilling his blood onto the cold concrete of an Oakland subway station. Pop! The distinct sound of gunfire rifled through the subway station, and momentarily muzzled the prattle of the rowdy crowd.   The previously ebullient gathering of teenagers and young adults celebrating the onset of a new year swiftly morphed into a chaotic scene.  At the sound of that distinctive “pop,” one life departed, one changed forever and dozens watched it all transpire.

It all began when officers rushed to the scene after receiving reports of an altercation on a train in Oakland’s Fruitvale station shortly after 2 ‘o clock in the morning on January 1, 2009.  Mr. Mehserle arrived with other officers, and quickly restrained an unarmed Mr. Grant, along with others nearby.  The officers essentially arrested them for “contempt of a police officer.”  What happened next varies depending on who provides the account, yet all parties agree that within a split second, Mr. Mehserle drew his gun, shot Mr. Grant in the back, and Mr. Grant died soon thereafter.

At the time Mr. Mehserle shot Mr. Grant, Oscar was subdued, facedown on the subway platform with the knee of another transit office firmly wedged in his back.  Several of his friends found themselves seated nearby as the entire scene unfolded.   They reportedly heard transit officer Tony Pirone hurl racial epithets at Mr. Grant, and then watched in horror as Mr. Grant was killed in front of them.  At least five people passing by caught the entire episode on cell phone video cameras: the confrontation with transit officers, the restraint of Mr. Grant, the shot, Mr. Grant laying on the subway platform motionless with that errant bullet lodged in his back, as his life slowly exited his frame.

"We Are All Oscar Grant" protests of the jury verdict finding former Oakland transit officer Johannes Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter

The shooting sparked intense public outrage, though it initially failed to gain much media attention outside of the Oakland region.  Nevertheless, numerous members of the Oakland community rejoiced at the news of Mr. Mehserle’s arrest and pending trial.  The prosecution sought a murder charge because Oscar Grant III’s death represented “an unlawful killing without explanation.” Mr. Mehserle faced possible sentences ranging from probation to fourteen years in prison.

As the trial drew to an end, many in Oakland waited with baited breath for the elusive serving of justice.  When a jury rendered its verdict finding Mr. Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter a few weeks ago, rather than the graver charge of second degree murder, it broke the hearts of hundreds who organized to support the Grant family and draw national attention to Oscar’s untimely death.  While Mehserle’s conviction represented the first time in California history that a law enforcement officer was tried for murder in a “line-of-duty shooting” (and consequently the first such conviction), the conviction of involuntary manslaughter seemed woefully inadequate as retribution for the life of a young man inexplicably cut short on New Year’s Day last year.

For many across this nation, Mr. Grant’s death represents the tragic belief, one forged after centuries of both empirical and anecdotal evidence that the life of an African American man is worth less than that of other men.  It reaffirms the expectation, that far too often, African American men will encounter violence at the hands of those who have sworn to protect them.  For too many, this merely serves as a dreadful reminder of other tragic tales, where members of law enforcement can take the lives of young African American men with impunity.  It also reinforced the reason many African American communities harbor a bitter distrust of law enforcement.  Certainly one can presume that members of the jury believed Mr. Mehserle’s account whereby he said he intended to draw his taser rather than his gun.

Nevertheless, at the time Mr. Grant was shot, he was facedown on the ground, with a transit officer’s knee to his back.  At that moment, he posed no legitimate threat to the officers, or those around them.  In such an instance, the use of even a taser arguably represented excessive force, rendering the defense of a mistake as moot.  Granted, the jury’s verdict was perfectly permissible under the law, and presumably followed the logical conclusion of plausible retelling of the series of events, but it does little to placate the anger felt by many who have seen the video of Oscar’s killing.  Oscar Grant III died at the hands of Mr. Mehserle, and nothing seemed “involuntary” about it.  The video footage of the shooting displayed the horrifying death of a young man at the hands of a uniformed officer.  For many, the footage offered irrefutable evidence of a crime that resulted in the death of a promising young man.  A Los Angeles jury did not draw the same conclusion, and perhaps it was due to the fact that many of them enjoy a sense of justice that others do not have the luxury to take for granted.

Oscar Grant III

Father’s Day

Honor thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;

-Ephesians 6:2

In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed a proclamation that declared the third Sunday of June as a day to celebrate fatherhood, and in so doing he officially recognized what had previously been a beloved annual celebration across the country for several decades.   The original idea of creating “Father’s Day” is attributed to Sonora Smart Dodd of Spokane, Washington.  Mrs. Dodd reportedly had the idea for a day to celebrate fatherhood while hearing a sermon on Mother’s Day in 1909.  Her father, a Civil War veteran, raised her along with her five siblings alone after her mother died in childbirth.  She believed he too deserved a moment of reverence and celebration, and pushed to have a day to honor fathers.  Mrs. Dodd drummed up support amongst local religious leaders, who subsequently celebrated the first Father’s Day on June 19, 1910 in Washington.  The celebration continued to grow throughout the years.

Father’s Day began as a religious holiday, presumably as a means to adhere to the commands of scripture, but quickly became commercialized as it grew in popularity nationally (e.g. President Calvin Coolidge lent his support for the observance in 1924).  It also has signaled a time where our nation pauses to reflect on fatherhood, celebrate those who embrace the title of father, and also serves as a jolting reminder of the deleterious impact that occurs when our fathers are absent.  President Obama, who notably has reflected on fatherhood quite publicly, has used the annual celebration of fatherhood as a means to spark a national conversation on fatherhood and personal responsibility, and also to launch an initiative that promotes responsible fatherhood and mentoring.

In essence, Father’s Day holds different meanings for us all.  Previously, Father’ Day for me represented a time when I would scurry to find a gift for my father more worthy of the occasion than a new tie or customized coffee mug, while simultaneously trying to convey my appreciation for his love and support throughout the years.  More recently, the day has grown in personal significance for me as I journeyed the road to fatherhood myself.  My wife and I lost who would have been our first child last year on Father’s Day.  A few months after our wedding day, we began debating when we would attempt to “grow” our family.  While we were debating the merits of waiting a bit longer, we learned a new life had begun growing inside my wife.  I, the one who advocated waiting for a more appropriate time, found myself surprisingly elated at the potential arrival, and spent the next several months eagerly preparing for the arrival of our bundle of joy.  I had envisioned how our lives would suddenly change upon our child’s arrival with distinct clarity, an almost arrogant certainty, when, within the blinking of an eye, our hopes were dashed by the unthinkable.  The vapour of life slipped from our grasp, vanishing before we could even fully appreciate its presence. 

That jarring moment demonstrated the frailty of this life, and how little control we have over it.  We were crushed, but not without hope.  We took solace in the fact that God, our Father in Heaven, is breathtaking and breath-giving.  It is the Creator, the Giver of Life, who determines the beginning of living, and we had to trust His timing.  We learned that lesson yet again when we found out that we would become parents nearly a year to the day we suffered our crushing loss.

Now that I am a father, I daily experience a range of emotions.  Naturally, I am thrilled that God has entrusted me with this great honor of becoming a parent, and find myself glowing during the day as I discuss the joy of tending to “my princess.”  I also feel consumed with a great sense of wonder and anticipation of who my daughter will become, and how my wife and will shape her growth and development.  Particularly, after our experience nearly a year ago, I was constantly reminded of the miracle of childbirth when I saw my wife waddle across the room, or when I observed her motherly glow throughout the day, or touched her belly and felt sudden movements from within, or when I would place my ear to her swollen abdomen and hear a faint heartbeat.  

Image by Ema Iruobe of Ema Iruobe Photography

On that blessed Sunday morning when my wife told me she thought she had begun labor, I became to beam with pride as I threw on some clothes and prepared myself to take my wife to the hospital.  I was also filled with nervousness as I constantly asked myself whether I was prepared for the task of being a father.  The moment we awaited for the previous nine months had thrust itself upon us, and with the passing of several hours, we were holding our daughter.

Holding her each day reminds me of how precious this life is, and it continually makes me consider how I am spending mine.  I feel the great weight of responsibility that comes with rearing a child “in the way [s]he should go.”  I find myself constantly examining myself and delving into deep introspection as I search for what lessons I will impart to her, what experiences will she remember me for, what habits are worth keeping, which should be discarded and what will be the be the sum of my legacy.  I wrestle with these questions as I think of what do I have to share that is of eternal significance.

Notwithstanding my lack of answers to these questions, my daughter gives my life new meaning, and new hope for what may come of it. When I peer into her eyes, I see more fulfilling joys, deeper purpose and a new sense of optimism of what the world can be.   I feel an urge to strive harder to be my best knowing she will view her first glimpse of manhood from me.  I feel a greater love for my wife as I share these precious moments with her.  I feel a more urgent desire to make this world more like it should be, so that my daughter will know a better life than I did.  I feel like a father, and there is no feeling like it.

Oil and Water

May 24, 2010 Satellite image provided by NASA from the Moderate Imaging Spectroradiometer Instrument

Yesterday morning, as millions of parishioners poured into houses of worship across the nation, hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil continued to pour into the Gulf of Mexico.  Around the time many churches began their services, Carol M. Browner, the President’s top energy advisor, appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press to discuss the government’s response to what many have called the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history.  Browner said more oil is leaking into the Gulf of Mexico than from any previous U.S. oil spill, including the epic Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 that left roughly 11 million gallons of oil (or about 260,000 barrels) in the waters off the Alaskan coast.  She also said the spill may continue into August, which means the oil spill will only be more complicated by hurricane season.

The Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank about fifty-two miles offshore from Venice, LA on April 20th, and the well it drilled subsequently began shooting oil into the Gulf of Mexico at alarming rates.  The leak, from 5,000 feet beneath the ocean, has proven to be far bigger than initially reported, and is contributing to a nagging sense of déjà vu, as the Louisiana government feels the federal government has failed it once again.   While most public attention has focused on the shoreline, where dead birds and dead dolphins continue to emerge, scientists have more concern for the underwater chemistry because they have little idea how the ecosystems will react to such a catastrophe.  Naturally, it is hard to ignore images of sea turtles with oil stuck on their corneas, dolphins washed up on shore and lifeless brown pelicans hauled away in plastic bags, but what transpires on the depths of the ocean floor and its root systems of coastal marshes might suffer the most significant long-term damage.

As the damage continues to increase, so does the level of criticism for BP America, the company that operated the rig that led to the spill.  Protests have spilled into the streets and at various BP gas stations across the country as the company’s oil continues spilling into the Gulf and prepares to slosh along the Louisiana shore. The federal government has joined in the public criticism as well. For example, Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano said, “It is clear that after several unsuccessful attempts to secure the source of the leak, it is time for BP to supplement their current mobilization as the slick of oil moves toward shore.” Congress also called BP America and its drilling partners to hearings organized to address the “cascade of failures” that led to the spreading of the Gulf oil spill.  In consecutive Senate hearings, lawmakers chided executives from BP America, Hailburton and Transocean, the three companies responsible for the massive spill.  Executives from the three companies then proceeded to pass the blame for the catastrophe onto each other.  The cycle of blame continued to circulate as critics have increasingly pressured President Obama to respond more forcefully to the growing crisis. This is ironic considering recent calls to limit government intrusions in everyday American life.

From left: Alabama Governor Bob Riley, President Obama, Admiral Thad Allen and Florida Governor Charlie Crist at a press conference addressing the oil spill

Seemingly lost amidst the incessant criticism of private companies and the federal government is a sense of personal responsibility.  As the distinct odor of crude oil creeps along the Louisiana shore to the point that now the air tastes of gasoline and its surrounding waters begin to “look like brownie batter,” we should reduce some of our criticism of BP America, Haliburton, Transocean, the federal government, et al, and seek to discern how our own lifestyle decisions and lust for overconsumption led to the drilling that sought to satisfy our insatiable desire for more.  Beyond the three companies’ greed to profit off of America’s consumerism lies personal accountability within the ignitions of our gas guzzling SUVs.  Will we take responsibility for careless consumption and spending habits that sent us offshore to find more oil to satisfy our indulgences? When will we take account for our reckless chants to “drill baby, drill?”

President Obama recently discussed why he never joined the pandemonium on the campaign trail clamoring for more offshore drilling, and reiterated why by saying plainly, “[T]hat’s part of the reason you never heard me say drill, baby, drill. Because we can’t drill our way out of the problem.” It would seem as though prior opponents to the idea of limiting offshore drilling have succumb to greater volumes of discretion as the crude oil continues to pump into the Gulf, but it seems as though the common American has swiftly forgotten how he or she shouted pro drilling chants with some of their favored politicians two short years ago.  The BP oil spill has begun to cause me to reconsider how I might “draw the line on my energy consumption,” and potentially encourages others to do the same.  All of us should do so, because all of us play a part in the mechanisms that drive our demand for oil.  Particularly, those who called upon the name of God yesterday morning should do so, considering He gave us dominion over the earth so that we might be proper stewards of it.  This crisis should make us all ponder our stewardship thus far.  My prayer is that these considerations are not too late.

Suffer the Little Children

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

-Luke 18:16

On Wednesday February 17, 2010, investigative judge Bernard Sainvil ordered the release of eight of the ten members of a U.S. missionary envoy who had been charged with child kidnapping and criminal association. Haitian officials caught the group attempting to transport thirty-three Haitian children out of the country without the government’s consent, and subsequently pressed charges. The group of Americans, consisting primarily of members from a Baptist congregation in Idaho, consistently maintained they merely sought to “rescue” the Haitian children they alleged were orphaned by the devastating earthquake that rocked the island nation on Tuesday January 12, 2010.  It is suggested that the group made more than one attempt to gather the children and transport them out of the country, and were warned not to do so prior to their arrest.   Nevertheless, Judge Sainvil ordered the release of eight of the missionaries, and chose to further detain two because they were in Haiti before the earthquake.  A ninth member of the group was released Monday March 8, 2010. It was announced earlier this week that the Haitian government dropped the kidnapping charges against the missionaries, though such news might have been overlooked due to reports of Senate hearings into the mortgage practices of Goldman Sachs.  Questions yet remain as to what will happen to the children.

Most of the children the missionaries assembled hailed from the earthquake-ravaged village Callebas.  Some of Callebas’ villagers told members of the Associated Press that the missionaries promised to educate the children, and allow relatives to visit.  This served as the primary incentive for some of the “orphaned” children’s parents and relatives to send the children away with the missionaries.  The group of American missionaries said it intended to take the thirty-three Haitian children to an unspecified orphanage in the Dominican Republic.  In an exclusive jail cell interview with CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker, Laura Silsby, the leader of the group and founder of the New Life’s Children Refuge, said:

We have not in any way trafficked or kidnapped children.  We came here out of love in our hearts for these children and have done our best to help them.  Once we were asked at the border to provide an additional piece of paperwork for the Haitian government, we willingly complied.

She further stated, “God wanted us to come here to help children.”

Despite the decision to drop the kidnapping charges against the group, the whole episode shed light on a complex dilemma: the routine abandonment of children in Haiti and the subsequent child trafficking it facilitates.  Prior to the January 12^th earthquake, the Haiti was known for its orphans.  Roshan Khadivi of Unicef has estimated that 2,000 children a year are trafficked out of Haiti.  Further reports have estimated that one in ten children under the age of five die due to complications related to preventable plagues such as malnutrition.  Consequently, destitute parents in Haiti routinely ask visitors from richer nations to transport their children back to the richer nation, with the hopes that the child will fare better within the confines of the more prosperous nation that sent its visitors.  The earthquake has merely compounded matters, and now humanitarian agencies have received floods of offers from families in the US and elsewhere to offer Haitian children “a better life.” Additionally, other organizations have tried to transport children out of the country.  In such situations, “children with no documentation get whisked away, and their families don’t know what has happened to them.”

Criticism of the Americans’ actions abound.  I even joined the chorus of critics occasionally suggesting the paternalistic nature of the ill-fated “rescue.”  On its face, it would appear the group kidnapped thirty-three children in the most dire straits. They maintain that their motives were pure, and any impropriety can be attributed to their naivete.  Regardless of such naivete, their actions were problematic.  Yet, I wrestle with the simple thought that these missionaries did something.  They watched in horror with the rest of the world as the harrowing images flashed across television screens, and chose to act. Millions of Americans responded to the tragedy heroically, and those without means to travel to Haiti gave donations at record rates to assist with repairing the devastation.  These missionaries acted as well, and thrust themselves into the thick of the fray.

As troublesome as their actions proved to be, the missionaries did what they believed best.  Notwithstanding, the missionaries’ actions gave light to an implied sense of superiority and offers a vivid reminder of times when foreign “do-gooders” descended upon the island nation (and other ravaged areas) in pursuit of questionable aims.  Nevertheless, if they are to be believed, these ten missionaries ventured across the Caribbean to assist those in need while many of us stayed home with our eyes affixed to our television screens.  It yet remains true that the children, along with thousands of others, still desperately need assistance, assistance these missionaries stated the went to provide.

Many of us experience difficulty grappling with the great weight of our internal convictions as they are juxtaposed against the compelling urge to put our faith towards some type of discernable external action. Furthermore, this life can thrust heartbreaking situations upon us that present difficult quandaries, as these missionaries’ plight has proven.   At times there are no convenient answers.  President Obama suggested this in his best-selling book, The Audacity of Hope, where he argued, “the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that are possible for all of us to know, understanding that a part of what we know to be true—as individuals or communities of faith—will be true for us alone.” In it, he referenced Abraham, the father of monotheism, as “a model of fidelity to God, and his great faith is rewarded through future generations.”  Yet he further stated:

“And yet it is fair to say that if any of us saw a 21^st century Abraham raising the knife on the roof of his apartment building, we would call the police; we would wrestle him down; even if we saw him lower the knife at the last minute, we would expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away and charge Abraham with child abuse.”

As imprudent as the missionaries seem in hindsight, their actions at the very least demonstrated the measure of their faith.   They accepted the charge listed in the epistle of James to prove the purity of their religion, even if their pure religion yielded tainted results in the eyes of their critics.  There dilemma has no simple solutions, and leaves lingering questions about whether justice was served.  Nevertheless, now that we know Haiti will no longer pursue kidnapping charges against the group, we must now wonder, who will suffer the little children, and how will they choose to do it?

Justice for All

Roughly over a month ago Fox TV personality Glenn Beck sparked the embers of the public discourse regarding the role of Christianity in effectuating equity throughout society. More particularly he said, “I beg you look for the words social justice or economic justice on your church Web site . . . if you find it, run as fast as you can.  Social justice and economic justice, they are code words  . . . Am I advising people to leave their church?  Yes!”  He added, “If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish.  Go alert your bishop and tell them, ‘Excuse me, are you down with this whole social thing?  If it’s my church, I’m alerting the church authorities: Excuse me, what’s this social justice thing?  And if they say, ‘Yeah, we’re all in our social justice thing.’ I am in the wrong place.’”  Mr. Beck then held up a picture of a swastika along with a picture of a hammer and sickle to illustrate his belief that social justice shares the same philosophy as Nazism and Communism.  According to Mr. Beck, “social justice” merely serves as a code word for the two.

Naturally, Mr. Beck’s remarks sparked intense outrage, and prominent Christian leaders have spoken out against his incendiary remarks.  Numerous others have rushed to clarify what it is that has drawn Mr. Beck’s ire in an attempt to define social justice before it becomes inextricably linked to Nazism and Communism in the eyes of his followers.  As untenable as this proposition may seem, there is precedent for such an occurrence.  Ron Rosenbaum of Slate reported that Tea Party spokeswoman Victoria Jackson recently told Fox News host Steve Doocy that President Obama is a communist, which she now knows because Glenn Beck taught her that “progressive” is a code word for “Communist.”  Needless to say, there remains a need to insert some clarity into the discussion as to what is meant by the term social justice, at least for Mr. Beck’s audience.

As reported by Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times, religious scholars say the term “social justice” was coined in the 1800s and successive popes codified the term in encyclicals. Basically the concept of social justice hinges on the premise “equal justice in all aspects of society,” and demands people have equal rights and opportunities. Proponents of social justice within the church believe a recurring theme throughout scripture is a call for believers to strive towards creating a more “just society.” While a select few share Mr. Beck’s views, multitudes of others abhor his comments because they yank at the very thread that knits together their commitment to their communities and the world at large.  His words also serve as a direct affront to scripture.

Notwithstanding Mr. Beck’s fallacious interpretation of some of the main thrusts of the Christian faith, the Bible speaks for itself, and in so doing mentions the word “justice” in over 200 separate locations. Furthermore, in numerous places, the Bible declares, in no uncertain terms, that believers in the living God must service the poor and downtrodden (Psalms 9:18, 10:9, 10:14, 34:6, 41:1, 69:33, 82:3-4, Proverbs 14:21, 14:31, 17:5, 21:3, 21:13, 22:9, Ecclesiastes 7:7, Matthew 19:21, 25:31-46, Luke 4:18-19, 6:20, Galatians 2:10, James 2:15-18, 4:17).  For further example, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed that the fast God desired was “to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke . . .” In his epistle, James proclaimed “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Moreover, while in a synagogue in Nazareth on one sabbath day, Jesus stood up to read of the prophet Esaias saying, “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” When He concluded reading, Jesus closed the book and sat down.  I suppose Reverend Robert B. Thompson, pastor of Lake Street Church in Evanston, was correct in saying Jesus is Glenn Beck’s worst nightmare.

Mr. Beck’s erroneous exegesis harkens back to a seemingly bygone era where throngs of well-intentioned Christian men and men sanctioned our nation’s original sin—chattel slavery.  Shortly thereafter, good-willed Christian men and women granted clemency to the transgressions it birthed—Jim Crow segregation, along with its atrocious progeny.  In the years that followed, similarly minded clergy banded together to publicly admonish Dr. King for his “unwise and untimely” opposition to the “racial injustices [that] engulf[ed] [their] community.”  It was in response to their public statement that Dr. King fiendishly scribbled notes on the margins of the very newspaper that published their statement, and continued jotting notes onto scraps of paper, until his words spilled onto a notepad.  In so doing, he penned his now legendary Letter from a Birmingham Jail, where he compared his plight to that of the eighth century prophets who ventured from their villages to proclaim, “thus saith the Lord.”  His words did little to silence the disapproval of the actions of civil rights activists, because our nation has never lacked dissenters who found it imprudent to commingle faith with meaningful action. Indeed, Mr. Beck is not the first to posit good Christian faith requires little social engagement, his words merely allowed him to join the chorus of those who have sought to thwart the efforts of believers in achieving a more equitable society.

In the wake of the controversy, Stu Burguiere, the executive producer of “The Glenn Beck Radio Program” has tried to clarify Mr. Beck’s comments by saying, “Like most Americans, Glenn strongly supports and believe in ‘social justice’ when it is defined as ‘good Christian charity . . . Glenn opposes when Rev. Wright and other leaders use ‘social justice’ as a euphemism for their real intention—redistribution of wealth.”  Even with such clarification, Mr. Beck’s comments still stand contrary to scripture.  Undoubtedly, if Mr. Beck would remain true to his convictions, he would have to advise believers to leave the first church, because members and leaders alike held all things in common.   Note the description of the church:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and the great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of land or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold.  35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Additionally, Mr. Beck might have suggested people leave the Mormon Church, to which he now belongs, considering the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints has issued a new “Handbook of Instructions” that revised the church’s threefold mission to include a fourth mission statement—care for the poor.  Consequently, in deriding the propriety of intermingling social justice with Christianity, Glenn Beck has acted in the spirit of one of our nation’s beloved founders who literally slashed numerous pages of the Bible (particularly from the New Testament) in an effort to remove scriptures he found unprofitable. In essence, he has made his own scripture, and asked his audience to follow it.  Presumably, Mr. Beck made his statements to stir controversy rather than to share his true theological underpinnings; nevertheless, it would appear as though when he fanned the flames of dissension in this matter, he attempted to incinerate the truth of scripture.

The Ides of March

Around this time last year I let it be known that I am a basketball enthusiast. My brand of choice is the NBA, with my favorite team hailing from a wonderful place below the Mason Dixon.  On the rare occasion I find myself watching television, I usually find myself watching them play.  My enthusiasm for the sport is so great that it compels me every so often to sneak into someone’s gym to showcase the reason why I went to law school rather than the NBA.

While millions share my enthusiasm for the NBA, the rest of the basketball world (some times it seems as though the rest of the world) becomes captivated by the college sport during this time of year.  I typically bide my time watching the remaining few games on the NBA regular schedule prior to the playoffs, and try my best to ignore college basketball beyond occasionally watching a NBA prospect in action.

Consequently, I rarely, if ever, complete a NCAA tournament bracket.   Last year represented the one of the few times I chose to deviate from that custom in recent memory.  I decided to change my policy last year, in part because I thought if the President can take a few moments out of his day to complete a bracket, surely I can take five minutes to do the same.  Because of I do not watch college basketball, I figured I should listen to the wisdom of supposed experts.

With the NCAA Final Four scheduled to begin this Saturday evening, I am reminded of how terribly wrong our prognostications often are.  We have little idea of how the next few minutes might unfold, let alone how sixty-five teams may fare over the span of three weeks.  Suffice to say, we know not what tomorrow brings.  ”Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”  I’ll let Saturday bring what it may, leave the predictions to the experts, and enjoy the games if I’m blessed with the opportunity.

I Do Not Believe

A year has passed . . . One year ago today, I began this ongoing conversation about some of the more pressing issues of our day with whomever stumbles across this site.  I stated then that I never intended to start a blog because I initially believed I did not deem myself arrogant enough.  I said:

The Internet, you know, that thing you go fishing with . . .

When most people thought that laptops were a new type of mini-skirt and assumed the Internet was something one would go fishing with, I found it untenable that you or anyone else would even try to stumble along the words of a young man from Georgia by way of Tennessee.  What I have since come to understand, is this whole thing you go fishing with can also allow us to connect with each other like never before.  We can do the whole I write you read, you write I read thing—you know a conversation—and share with each other on a grander scale.

I still believe that.  This space offers an opportunity, like no other medium, to connect more regularly with little to no hindrances.  I fully acknowledge that the draw of narcissism persists and the temptation to have increasing numbers readers scroll across this page in an effort to collect “subscribers” is a real one.  I simply strive to resist such temptations and humbly invite you to this conversation to ensure this is not a monologue.  My prayer in writing these posts and sharing these thoughts is that I get to talk with you, not at you, and prayerfully this talking could lead to responsible action in tackling some of the issues we face.  I also hope it sparks a good time or two.

With that said, I will continue the conversation, and ask you join me.  Last year I borrowed an idea from ESPN Page 2 Columnist Scoop Jackson when I introduced myself by telling you some of what I believe.  Now, a year from the date of that initial post, I will amend this idea slightly by introducing myself further by telling some of what I do not believe.

• I do not believe faith in God is antiquated.
• I do not believe the Bible has lost any of its relevance.
• I do not believe I will ever have the words to fully describe God.
  • I do not believe I will ever tire of trying.
• I do not believe we can say, “[We] love God,” and not love people.
• I do not believe faith is demonstrated by mere words.
• I do not believe many of us live the way that pleases Jesus.
• I do not believe American citizens can logically advocate for lesser federal government intrusions in their daily lives and simultaneously pressure the federal government to promulgate legislation that will impose their social agenda.
• I do not believe the Atlanta Hawks will win the NBA Championship this year, but I am thrilled that they are widely deemed championship contenders.
• I do not believe most Republican lawmakers who openly oppose President Obama’s domestic agenda have legitimate concerns for the long-term viability of our nation.
  • I do not believe most of their supporters care about their hypocritical stances.

• I do not believe Democratic lawmakers have all the answers to our nation’s problems.
• I do not believe you should wait to do “at last what [you] should do at first.”
• I do not believe Haiti is cursed by God.
• I do not believe forgetting President Obama “was black for an hour” is a compliment, nor is it an accurate barometer for the tenor of current race relations in the country.
• I do not believe “black” is synonymous with “hood.”
• I do not believe Kobe Bryant is, or will ever be, a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.
  • I do not believe it is even a close comparison.
• I do not believe Republican public figures who intend to run for elected office can legitimately claim the media is “in the tank for Obama” and then use their position as political pundits on a “fair and balanced” news source in order to promote their political agenda.
• I do not believe one should treat animals better than one treats other people.
• I do not believe the American military does enough to protect female soldiers from their male comrades.
  • I do not believe the average American cares enough about this issue.
• I do not believe I could have married a better woman.
• I do not believe there is any greater responsibility than being a parent.
• I do not believe John Mayer understands the depth of his innately racist and objectifying comments about African Americans and African American women.
  • I do not believe his apology was adequate either.
• I do not believe Barack Obama defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Primary is indicative of racism being less palpable than sexism.
• I do not believe the NCAA should try to continue its charade of promoting student athletics when most of those most prominently featured have little to no aspirations to be students.
• I do not believe Sarah Palin understands what political satire actually is.
  • I do not believe she should criticize Family Guy without also criticizing the network that hosts the show and employs her.
  • I do not believe it is a secret why she chose not to.
• I do not believe hip-hop is dead.
• I do not believe everyone who disagrees with you is a “hater.”
• I do not believe much of what we worry about is worth our time.
• I do not believe we have heard from all of Tiger Woods’ mistresses.
  • I do not believe Tiger Woods is the worst of philandering public figures.
  • I do not believe he is even the worst of philandering professional athletes.
• I do not believe lawmakers in a democratic society should be able to refuse to negotiate in good faith with members of an opposing party and simultaneously block the legislative process when the opposing party attempts to promulgate legislation they do not agree with.
• I do not believe I will ever believe another word Jonathan Edwards says.
  • I do not believe I should feel that way.
• I do not believe Drake is a “positive rapper.”
• I do not believe Lil’ Wayne is the “best rapper alive.”
  • I do not believe he is the “next rapper in line” either.
• I do not believe we smile enough.
• I do not believe we should let a day go by without expressing our gratitude for experiencing it.
• I do not believe you will have a better opportunity than now to tell those who are important to you how much they mean to you.
  • I do not believe you will have as long as you’d like to do it.
  

A Conversation on Marriage Pt. II

Two weeks ago I mentioned how a good friend shared a link to a provocative debate conducted and published by ABC News’ award winning show, Nightline that elicited a great conversation amongst those around me.   The link featured Nightline Anchor Cynthia McFadden moderating the fourth installment of Nightline’s recurring series, The “Face-Off,” where opposing sides debate controversial topics.  This particular debate, hosted at the Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, pitted Pastor Ed Young of the Fellowship Church and recovering sex addict and founder of “Be Broken Ministries” Jonathan Daughtery against Ashley Maidson.com founder and CEO Noel Biderman and author Jenny Block.  The debate centered on The Seventh Commandment, adultery and the question of whether we were born to cheat.   My wife Rashida, along with our two of our friends, John and Fran, a married couple, conversed with me in our last installment.   They have graciously have agreed to join me again.  I will identify the speaker by some sort of appropriate marker (e.g. Me, Rashida, John, Fran).  We began our discussion at the beginning, by answering what is marriage.  In this installment, we are continuing our conversation where we concluded our previous one, and will discuss some of the thoughts The Face-Off sparked.  I pray you enjoy the discussion as much as we have, and always, you are invited to leave your thoughts in the comment section.

Nightline began its discussion in the thick of its controversy by asking, “Are we born to cheat?”  What do you think?  Are we born to cheat?  Is monogamy, in its truest sense, possible in the current age?

(Me) As the flawed, sinful beings we are, we innately have the ability to cheat.  Nevertheless, to say, “We are born to cheat,” is a bit misleading.  It presupposes an inevitability of infidelity that I do not believe exists.    Each individual has a greater propensity towards committing certain acts than the average person, but to proclaim we all are destined to commit a specific act oversimplifies the problem and too easily skirts individual responsibility.

Furthermore, monogamy is far from old-fashioned; it is quite romantic when one considers the adventure of discovering new ways to show one person the depths of your love as you share life together.  It is also not as daunting of a task as we often make it sound either, when one thinks of the joy each day can bring or how comforting sharing sorrows may be.  In a recent interview with WHYY’s Marty Moss-Coane, author Frank Shaeffer discussed how he believes true living occurs between the “big ideas” that guide our lives (e.g. love, faith, peace, hope, et cetera).  He then suggested that his faithfulness to his wife was not thirty-nine years of monogamy, but a long series of daily commitments to remain true to his wife.   Though I do not endorse all of his ideas, I believe there is some truth in his perspective on monogamy.  For example, though I have made a lifelong commitment to my wife, that commitment is evidenced by my daily demonstrations of that commitment.  I live I remain mindful of my lifelong commitment, and each day I have an opportunity to demonstrate my faithfulness to it.

(Rashida) I have an issue with this question. It was definitely framed from a carnal perspective because the question in itself demonstrates a warped way of thinking (some would call it “reprobate”).  Another way to frame this question is, “Why were we created?”  There are many scriptures that help to answer this question.  The most basic answer is that “We were created for God’s pleasure.” If this is where we begin, then the question, “Are we born to cheat?” becomes moot.  Starting with the understanding that infidelity and adultery are things that displease God, asking the question, “Are we born to cheat” sounds a little silly.  Since God’s standards for marriage, purity, and holiness still apply to us today; it is absolutely the case that monogamy is still the standard for relationships today.

(John)  Depending upon which way you read this question, a multiplicity of answers could be given.  If read in the sense “are we bound to cheat,” then yes, we are indeed born to cheat.  We are born to do a lot of things.  We are born to lie, born to cheat, born to hate, and born to deceive.  But this is why Jesus came to save us from our total depravity, because we may be ‘born to cheat’, but we aren’t justified in our proclivity to cheat.   Cheating violates the nature of God, whose nature we are expected to reflect.

If read in the sense “is our purpose to cheat,” then no, we aren’t born to cheat.  The meaning of our lives on earth reaches far beyond such beggarly things as cheating, lying, and the like.  Every person’s responsibility is to respond to the calling of God on their soul, and thereafter follow His leading as He directs the path of their life.  God is the central figure in this monumental, epic, theatrical production called life, and we are the supporting cast.  Every moment of our lives is meant to bring attention to God, and to live attentive to God.  Cheating is not written in the proverbial script!

Does adultery exist where both parties consent to an open marriage?

(John) What must be considered is marriage is not defined by the individuals who choose to participate in it.  Marriage is defined by the Creator of it.  We can’t after countless thousands of years, up and decide to redefine the guidelines which makes marriage what it truly is.  Such a disposition is a result of our humanistic worldviews, in which we believe everything revolves around us.  If I haven’t made it clear by now, my opinion is, yes, adultery does exist where both parties consent to an open marriage.  There is no such thing as an open marriage in essence.  The very fiber of marriage has everything to do with ‘closed’.  Exclusivity is built into its framework.

I wonder what vows people of open marriages take?  I imagine them to be people who want to go through bells and whistles of a grandiose marriage with the archbishop straight from the Vatican presiding, expressing lofty vows, and wearing expensive dresses and suits.  Do such individuals even pay attention to the very words that come falling out of their mouths as they stand at God’s altar?  Are they more concerned with form and fashion?  Since white dresses and stained glass windows seem to be the prescribed way to do marriage ceremonies, they simply fall in line without thought?  Whatever it is, my suggestion would be to not even call it marriage.  Because they are simply trying to sanctify something, that can’t be sanctified!

(Me) In a word, yes, adultery exists in an open marriage.  I agree with John, and will present my answer through an example in the law.  In some instances consent can serve as a means to insulate one from liability for potentially harmful or offensive conduct, so long as the conduct does not exceed the scope of the consent.  For example, a football player impliedly consents to bodily contact, contact that could presumably prove harmful, when the player agrees to participate in a game.  Thus, it would be silly for one player to initiate a lawsuit against another because the player suffered a minor injury from a routine tackle by the other.  Nevertheless, a player who violates the given rules or established customs of the game in a manner that inflicts an injury on another may prove liable for such conduct, because that conduct exceeded the scope of the consent.  Therefore, even in a game of football, a game heralded for the ferocious and vicious beatings it inflicts upon its players, prohibits conduct that represents a clear deviation from the confines of the game and the purpose for play.

Adultery represents a direct violation of the covenant of marriage, and consent cannot mitigate the breach it initiates.  By its very nature, adultery represents a clear deviation from the confines of the relationship (or the game in the football analogy), regardless of how or why both parties consented to enter the relationship (or play in the football analogy).  In marriage, the two become one and covenant to form an eternal union.  The two vow to share life, in its most intimate detail.  That is why the Bible describes martial intimacy as “to know.”  Adultery allows for another to trespass the bounds of the union, and thereby represents a breach of the covenant.  It also is the only means in which Jesus justified divorce.  Regardless of whether both parties are cognizant of the dalliance, and thereby consent to it, neither knowledge nor consent halts the transgressing of the bounds of appropriateness, nor does it preserve the union severed by the adulterous act(s).  It actually constitutes a graver offense considering both parties knew it, and condoned behavior that stands contrary to the purpose of marriage.  Consequently, in the event two have agreed to have what is termed an open marriage, the two have agreed to diminish the strength of their bond and commit adultery.

Are the Ten Commandments Old Fashioned?  Should we even attempt to allow them to guide our daily lives? How can we reconcile them with the laws that currently govern our society.

(Me) During the discussion Noel Biderman argued that the absence of all but two of the Ten Commandments in modern law is evidence of their inability to stand the test of time.  In short, he said that the old fashioned law of the Old Testament is outdated, which is why our law, the law of the United States, did not promulgate laws based on the other commandments.  He used this as a basis for his argument supporting the propriety of adultery when all parties are privy to the liason(s).  This proposition conflates the purpose of the law of God and the law of man (it also ignores the influence the Ten Commandments have had on our laws).   The purpose of God’s law is to expose the presence of sin, show us a better way to live and ultimately make us more like God.  As I mentioned before, I believe the purpose of man’s law is not to legislate morality, but rather to set a minimum standard of expectation and set forth remedies when those expectations are dashed.  The United States is not a modernized theocracy.  It is a secular democracy with heavy Christian cultural influences. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Its laws were never intended to supplant God’s laws, they merely seek to allow people of divergent backgrounds to converge their lives harmoniously and resolve their differences peacefully.  The Ten Commandments are far from outdated, particularly when viewed in light of their purpose.   They have merely been fulfilled through the life of Christ, embodied in His believers and ignored by those who do not believe.