Pit Bulls
Recently, not far from where I live, a woman was viciously attacked and killed by 4 pit bulls while out on a walk. It was a horrific tragedy. I can’t imagine what that must have been like to die in such a gruesome way.
This sort of story seems to surface in our country almost every year, and the question is always asked whether or not there should be some sort of ban on pit bulls or similar breeds. Everyone seems to have an opinion that’s backed up by “science” (Please note…I use science with the utmost sarcasm). Typically, our responses to and stances on such ethical arguments are based upon an impulse stemming from our emotions and experiences towards the object “on trial”. That is to say, in this situation, we react based on how we feel about pit bulls, and dogs in general, not on what is the common good or even what is logical.
Those dogs have been put down as the owner awaits trial for murder.
But, despite stories like this people will still buy pit bulls, and they will continue to torment, injure, intimidate, and even in extreme and rare cases, kill innocent people. Whether it’s due to poor training, issues with the bread, or the fact that no animal is truly domesticated, something will happen again…even if legislation is put into place. So the conversation as to whether or not people should be able to own them will continue to fill the airwaves and backyards of our communities.
Swimsuits
A few weeks ago a video made its rounds through social media by a woman named Jessica Rey who spoke at Q Ideas regarding the need for a resurgence in modesty. She made a call to be more modest out of respect for others’ hearts and out of respect for one’s own body. It was well thought out, compelling, and refreshing amidst our overly sexualized culture.
Later, Q Ideas released a response to Rey’s speech by Rachel Held Evans. She spoke about how we must contextualize what modesty means, and that it’s not a woman’s fault if a man lusts after her whether she’s in a bikini or a burka. Her argument was also compelling, well thought out, and refreshing as it put the sin of lust into luster…not the object of it.
Despite initial appearances, these two posts were not in direct opposition to each other. Instead, they seem to provide two puzzle pieces that needed to be brought together to get a better handle on the issue at hand.
As these two posts circled social media, the conversation arose as to whether or not a woman should be able to wear what she wants, or if she should be concerned about leading a man into temptation and letting her beauty come from outward adornment (1 Timothy 2:9)…or un-adornment in this case. The conversations around modesty and whether or not a woman should be able to reveal certain parts of her body is an ancient conversation, and one that, as the warmer weather surrounds us, becomes ever salient. So whether you choose “modesty” or being “unashamed” of your body, this conversation addresses some serious matters of the heart that are rarely given serious consideration in the public square.
Machine Guns
Here enters one of the biggest hot button issues in our country right now…gun legislation. This is an old conversation…it’s been going on for centuries, and has evolved over the years as the need for guns has shifted away from hunting for dinner towards recreation…all with self protection thrown in on both ends. But with recent mass shootings in public spaces and the advancement in weapon technology…this conversation has needed to be more productive and conclusive as innocent people are dying at the hands of civilian owned assault rifles.
Sadly, we’ve been conditioned to make this a hot, hot, HOT button issue as our uber-editorialized media sources push our emotional buttons towards one side or another as they increasingly polarize our nation and inhibit productive conversation to occur. As a result we’ve castrated open mindedness and thoughtful, loving, and caring dialogue on the issue. I’ve found that this is rarely a conversation where anyone leaves changing their mind. Despite that, we’re still left to figure out what is best for society with convincing arguments on both ends along with romantic notions of freedoms, idealized society, and historical precedent muddying the waters.
THE Conversation
As I entered and left these conversations over the past few weeks, I began to realize something…they are the exact same conversation…and they have nothing to do with legislation, political parties, capitalism, or our emotional responses to the issues.
It’s simple.
This whole conversation is just an echo of Cain’s question when he was confronted as to Abel’s whereabouts, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9b)
As humans we have certain things that are available for our use. They can be used for good or bad. My words can encourage, and they can kill. The food I eat can make me healthier, or fatter. The computer in which I write can be used for scholarly research to better the world, or it can fashion a racist heart. What we do with the material of life impacts the people around us, whether we intend it to or not. The material impacts the spiritual which impacts the eternal…these facets of our existence are inseparable and if we miss out on this point, then life simply becomes a compartmentalized mess where true relationship with Christ and the people around us are lost because we’re only giving certain people certain aspects of ourselves.
Now, this doesn’t change the truth that each of us is responsible for our own sins. I feel that Evans points that out quite well. It doesn’t matter how a woman is dressed…if a man lusts for her, he’s at fault. We never have the ability to blame our sins upon people or context. It’s always our fault. But as we live in community, we must also see that our choices can positively or negatively impact others.
In a conversation about whether or not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, Paul says this, “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” (1 Corinthians 8:13). Paul saw that if someone could sin as a result of something he was doing, then he just cut it out of his life. Paul felt so strongly about our role in our brother’s temptation into sin that he said this in the verse prior in 1 Corinthians 8:12, “Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.” The issue isn’t dinner…it’s what our choices do to those around us who are spiritually, physically, or mentally weak in some way. Your choices can help or hurt those around you. We live in a land of great freedom, and as those freedoms become challenged now and again, our viewpoints get stuck in the protection of our own rights and what the letter of the law dictates instead of how can we better serve our neighbor…that’s the sort of nation our Lord desires.
It all boils down to a single question, “Are we setting up people to fail?” Are the choices we make helping others know Jesus, or are they helping them know the world? Are we setting the table to feast upon Jesus, or setting the table to feast upon emptiness. We all have an obligation to our neighbor to help them be closer to Jesus, and to have life, as He gives it, to its fullest. Is there anything sinful about pit bulls, the human body, or machine guns…nope…and we shouldn’t turn this conversation into that conversation. That’s actually not the question that needs to be asked. There is nothing in the world that in and of itself is a sin. My thoughts can be righteous or evil, my possessions can be used for godliness or destruction, and I graciously live in a land where I have freedom, but I can use my freedom for evil.
I can set people up to fail.
”For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness,and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.” (2 Peter 1:5-7-emphasis mine)
What we have matters some…what we do with it matters more (see Romans 6:13). Should our government legislate these things? That actually doesn’t matter to the Christian. Without downplaying the importance of government in society, they do not have the power to change the heart. Only Jesus can do that. Big government, small government, no government…those are old, redundant, and, honestly, remedial conversations because none of them can produce the sort of change in the world that we all long for. No government (or business for that matter) can produce a community and a culture where everyone is looking out for each other’s benefit (not even Jessica Rey’s suits can destroy lust). Only Jesus can do that. In regards to what we wear, what we say, and how we present ourselves before others, the issue is less about government legislation, but more about editing ourselves in a way that does not cause offense and gives God glory. We seem to live in a culture where peacemaking and encouraging have become passé.
Now, because only Jesus can truly change, the question of whether or not to limit something or to eliminate something is always a question that is being posed to the church. As people of God’s Kingdom, our answers derive not from the letter of the law, but from the Gospel, which actually has the power save and transform lives. The keys to eternal life are found in the cross…in forgiveness…in grace. Grace shown to others is the automatic posture of someone transformed by Jesus. Doing whatever I please is void of grace and attempts to destroy God’s call to love our neighbor.
All of this makes me appreciate that the early Christians were simply called followers of The Way. We make the issue difficult when we leave up to the politicians and philosophers and business people of the day. The texts that they are working off of are just copies of copies, and only attempt to emulate the good book (some better than others). If we live to glorify Jesus, and to bring others into a relationship with Him…then we’ve found our answer on how we should live amongst others…sacrificially.
Though the solutions to these issues aren’t found in legislation…they have been and will continue to be legislated sometimes to our delight, and other times to our dismay. Since this is the case, it reminds me of the numerous times Jesus was posed such questions. He often responded not to the question asked verbally, but the question asked in the heart of the person inquiring. In this case the question being asked is “Can I do whatever I want and not be held responsible for the people around me?” In this case, the answer is clear, and imperative to understand…your choices matter to everyone and our calling is to love them in all matters. You can set others up to fail.